DdC

Drugs: To Legalize or Not By STEVEN B. DUKE
Wall Street Journal Friday, April 24, 2009
Decriminalizing the possession and use of marijuana would raise billions in taxes and eliminate much of the profits that fuel bloodshed and violence in Mexico.

Steven B. Duke is a professor of law at Yale Law School.

Drugs: To Legalize or Not analysis by Pete Guither
Friday, April 24, 2009
A must read by Steven B. Duke in the Wall Street Journal

Also hopeless is the notion -- now believed by almost no one -- that we can keep the drugs from coming into this country and thereby cut off the traffickers' major market. If we could effectively interdict smuggling through any of our 300-plus official border crossing points across the country and if we eventually build that fence along our entire border with Mexico -- 1,933 miles long -- experience strongly suggests that the smugglers will get through it or over it. If not, they will tunnel under or fly over it. And there is always our 12,383 miles of virtually unguarded coastline. [...]

We can try to deal with the Mexican murderers as we first dealt with Al Capone and his minions, or we can apply the lessons we learned from alcohol prohibition and finish dismantling the destructive prohibition experiment. We should begin by decriminalizing marijuana now.

JOHN WYETH & BROTHERS CANNABIS POWDER



Drugs: To Legalize or Not By JOHN P. WALTERS
Wall Street Journal Saturday, April 25, 2009
Progress in Colombia provides clear evidence that the war on drugs is winnable, while history repeatedly shows that relaxed restrictions lead to more abuse and addiction.

John Pee is a graduate dickhead from hell... by DdC

DAREyl SWAT Gates LAPDog Perversions

DEA -- a record of constant failure

New research finds that a national campaign's anti-drug TV ads failed to convince young children and teenagers to stay away from marijuana and actually might have encouraged some to try smoking pot.

Signs of Sickness and D.E.A.th

In their 1999 to 2004 incarnation, the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign's TV ads "either had no effects on kids or possibly had a boomerang effect," said Robert Hornik, lead author of a new study and professor of communication at the University of Pennsylvania.

Blessed is the Police State?
Exporting DEAmocracy

The U.S. Congress created the anti-drug campaign in the late 1990s and gave almost $1 billion to it through 2004, according to the study. The taxpayer-funded campaign continues to create anti-drug advertising today.

Drug Cop Lies Sent over 150 to Jail 10.9.8

"In some districts, inhabited by Latin Americans, Filipinos, Spaniards and Negroes, half the violent crimes are attributed to marijuana craze. Dr. Lee Rice of San Antonio reports that eighty per cent of all the murders committed by Mexicans are done while the killers are drugged by marijuana."
-- The Christian Century (newspaper) - 1938

Drug Worrier Recycling

The Committee on Oversight and Government has issued a report critical of the Drug Czar's office and others, for their efforts to help the Bush Administration get Republicans elected in 2006. It's something we talked about at the time. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be as interested in the ONDCP's efforts to undermine state and local initiatives and legislative efforts.

DdC

More nonsense from the usual suspects by Pete Guither
Saturday, April 25, 2009

Naturally, the recent flurry of legalization articles and stories in the media was bound to bring out the big guns of prohibition supporters, and they don't disappoint. Here are three of biggest ones.

John Walters: Drugs: To Legalize or Not in the Wall Street Journal.

I've always admired Walters for his smooth ability to lie non-stop. He's absolutely brilliant at cherry-picking statistics to "prove" anything he wants and taking credit for anything positive that happens regardless of the reason. I had wondered if he would continue to do so after no longer required by law, but this article shows he has no intention of stopping - he revels in it.

Check out this move in the beginning of the piece:

What would America look like with twice or three times as many drug users and addicts? To answer, consider what America was like in the recent past, during the frightening epidemic of methamphetamine, so similar to the crack outbreak of the 1980s. Each was a nightmare, fueled by ready drug availability.

Beautiful. Such craft. Notice how he doesn't state that there would be 2 or 3 times as many drug users with legalization (the evidence, after all, denies it) -- he lets you assume it by asking you to imagine it. And then, think about those horrible epidemics that ravaged this country back when we legalized and regulated crack in the 80's and meth just recently... Wait. We didn't legalize or regulate them. Ah....

See what he did there? To the extent that these were "epidemics" (there was some media hype, after all), crack and meth were by-products of prohibition. Yes, they were caused by the war on drugs. And their reduction had little to do with a drug war victory and more to do with the natural shifting of drug use/abuse patterns.

He goes on to take credit for the paradise that is Colombia, and claims the violence in Mexico is a sign of victory as well.

He attempts to downplay the comparisons with the violence of alcohol prohibition with this:

Moreover, some of us remember that Bobby Kennedy was leading organized-crime strike forces against extremely dangerous mafia families, decades after the end of Prohibition. Just as ending Prohibition did not destroy organized crime in the U.S., legalizing drugs will not break the terrorist criminal groups in Mexico.

And the reason that Bobby Kennedy was able to do so was because we legalized alcohol and stopped that huge influx of profits (and law enforcement corruption). Legalizing drugs will not eliminate the cartels, but it will greatly reduce their power, their corrupting ability and their recruiting ability.

Walters ends with absolutely offensive, nonsensical, and un-American statement:

We can make progress faster when more of us learn that drug use and addiction can not be an expression of individual liberty in a free society.



Let's move on to...

Ron Brooks: Puff, Puff, Keep Drug Laws Passed at NPR.

Unlike Walters, Brooks is just a first-class moron. He's president of the National Narcotic Officers' Associations' Coalition, and is merely interested in pushing the drug war for personal gain. He doesn't care to actually learn anything but just regurgitates the standard lies and talking points from other drug warriors.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument that marijuana legalization is a healthy policy choice -- physiologically, economically or socially.

See what I mean? He clearly hasn't heard a word we've said.

And check out this paragraph jammed full of all the false talking points.

More than 65 percent of all teens in treatment are there for marijuana dependence, with another 11 percent in treatment for alcohol and drug dependence together, many of whom are using pot with alcohol. In another disturbing trend, hospital emergency room admissions involving marijuana tripled between 1994 and 2002 and now surpass ER admissions involving heroin. And drugged driving accidents -- many involving marijuana -- kill more than 8,000 and maim another 500,000 every year.

Well, let's see.

1. Since the majority of pot smokers in treatment are there because they were referred to by criminal justice and not for dependency, what this statistic says about marijuana dependency is precisely: zero.
2. Since ER admission stats don't limit it to drug references that caused the emergency room visit, what this statistic tells us about marijuana dangers is precisely: zero
3. Since this statistic is, well, wrong, and yet still says nothing about whether pot had any culpability in causing a fatal accident, what this statistic tells us is precisely: zero.

Thanks for playing, Ron.

I also was confused by one of the commenters on that article: Bill Robinson, supporting Brooks, said:

If you had a cow that kept jumping the fence the answer is not to tear down the fence. It is to make the fence taller.

These bad metaphors confuse me. Is marijuana use the cow and law enforcement the fence? Well, that doesn't work, 'cause marijuana use isn't anything like a cow, and law enforcement is more like a bunch of anvils being dropped on cows than a fence. And then I thought, maybe we're the cows and pot is on the other side of the fence. Well, Bill Robinson has no right to fence me or any other American citizen in like a cow. We're not your property.



Let's move on to number 3.

Mark Kleiman: Double Drug Trouble in Foreign Policy

Mark's an interesting case. A schizophrenic policy wonk who wants to legalize marijuana and regularly trashes the excesses of prohibition, yet likes to verbally abuse legalizers for no reason, and supports... prohibition.

Here he does his usual schtick of dismissing anti-prohibitionists without any stated reason.

But simply substituting antiprohibitionist slogans for drug-war slogans, though it adds variety, does not give us clarity. [...]

Both no-brainer "solutions" to the drug problem --"a drug-free society" and "ending the drug war" -- are equally delusional. The two drug problems [drug abuse and prohibition] are both here to stay. Let's learn to deal with that fact.

Why would I possibly want to learn to deal with the fact that something as destructive as prohibition is here to stay? That would be stupid.

As usual, he does a great job of dismantling pro-prohibition arguments

The enforcement effort also generates harm: arrest, incarceration, bribery, gunfights between enforcers and dealers. [Kleiman leaves out some of the costs of prohibition here, but still it's a good overview.] The problem of the illicit market constitutes the second "drug problem."

Drug warriors tend to focus narrowly on the drug abuse problem and reject any attempt to limit the harms done by trafficking and enforcement, other than by putting dealers out of business. But the logic of the market dictates that incarcerated dealers will be replaced as long as there are customers willing to pay illicit-market prices. After more than a generation of fighting this war, there is overwhelming evidence that drug-law enforcement is a weak tool at best for reducing drug consumption.

But then, what does he come up with (after, of course, eliminating regulated legalization with no reason)?

The United States could -- and should -- greatly de-escalate its domestic drug war, halving the number of dealers behind bars, without greatly increasing drug abuse.

Really? That's what you've got? Do we just arrest half as many? How do we choose? Maybe just the black ones... (Oh, wait...) Or reduce the sentences by 50%? Or just go after the violent ones? Of course, if we legalized and regulated drugs, we could just go after the violent criminals and greatly reduce the number of dealers behind bars, without greatly increasing drug abuse. And at the same time, we'd dramatically reduce all the destructive costs of prohibition.

But apparently that's not a serious option.

Vices Are Not Crimes

__________________

wellfleation

Fuck John P. Walters

__________________
FIGHTPOWER

seattle420lover

John Hill John Hill, Journal Staff WriterProvidence Journal
Opposition not seen to lessening penalty on marijuana use
Byline: John Hill John Hill, Journal Staff Writer
Edition: All
Section: Local News
Type: News

A bill to reduce the penalty for possession of less than an ounce of marijuana was not opposed in a hearing last week.

PROVIDENCE -- No one seems to be getting worked up about a bill before the General Assembly that would decriminalize possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, making it a civil violation punishable by fine rather than jail time.
At a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, only three people -- a former New Jersey police detective, a spokesman for a convict assistance agency and a representative of the American Civil Liberties Union -- testified about the bill. All were in favor of it.

No one from the attorney general's office, the governor's office or any other state agency appeared to oppose it. Nor was there anyone from the state's law enforcement agencies to speak a negative word.

Amy Kempe, spokeswoman for Governor Carcieri, said it would be premature for the governor to comment on a bill that has not been voted on by either the House or the Senate, since it could change in any number of ways during that process. If it's approved, she said, the governor would take a position on the bill as passed. The state Health Department, which had opposed last year's medical marijuana bill, had no position and the state's drug court officials declined to comment as well.

Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch's spokesman, Michael Healey, said with literally hundreds and hundreds of bills introduced each session, Lynch had to pick the ones that most closely affected his office's operations or legislative priorities. He said the marijuana decriminalization bill was not one of them. Healey added Lynch had supported the medical marijuana law.

Pawtucket Police Chief George L. Kelley III, president of the Rhode Island Police Chiefs' Association, also declined to comment, either personally or on his organization's behalf, saying the bill "is not on our radar."

The Assembly last year overrode a Carcieri veto to legalize marijuana for medical uses. A new bill sponsored by Sen. Leo R. Blais, R-Coventry, would not make possession of an ounce or less of marijuana legal, but it would reduce penalty for such possession from up to a year of jail time to a civil violation with a maximum $100 fine and forfeiture of the marijuana. The laws concerning possession with intent to sell would not be changed.

Sen. Charles J. Levesque, D-Portsmouth, vice chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he thought that with the state facing such a difficult time with its budget, fiscal issues might shunt the Blais bill aside, at least this year.

Blais said he thought his bill had a 60-percent chance of passing this session. He attributed the lack of vocal opposition to last year's passage of the medical marijuana law, saying it showed support for easing the penalties concerning a small amount of the drug. "We approved medical marijuana," Blais said. "That was the fight. That horse is already out of the barn and in the next field."

jhill@projo.com / (401) 277-7381

2009

__________________
"The highest realms of thought are impossible to reach without first attaining to an understanding of compassion" SOCRATES, 470-399 BC

seattle420lover

Reefer saneness at Justice Dept.
Daytona Beach News-Journal
Reefer saneness at Justice Dept.
Edition: N-J Final
Section: Section A
Memo: NJ Editorial

Zero tolerance for marijuana use was itself a policy more stoned than the imaginary problem it targeted. It had federal prosecutors squandering resources and attention even on medical- marijuana distributors in more than a dozen states that have legalized such use. The policy, stepped up during the Bush administration, cost billions, did nothing to deter marijuana use (it increased this decade) and made life needlessly more painful for cancer, glaucoma and AIDS patients who use marijuana to reduce suffering and nausea.

That zero-tolerance policy died last week. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Obama administration would no longer prosecute medical- marijuana distributors or users. Desirable as that additional step would be, the administration isn't legalizing marijuana use, but it will only focus on medical- marijuana distributors investigations reveal to be fronts for broader drug operations.
California 13 years ago became the first state to legalize marijuana for medical uses. But when state and federal law clash, federal law prevails. And federal law forbids any use of marijuana. Federal prosecutions were conducted under that law, which the Supreme Court upheld in 2005. Holder can't wipe out federal law. But he can choose not to enforce it, which amounts to the same thing (as long as a like-minded attorney general occupies the office). The Justice Department's policy reversal will have an immediate impact in the 13 states where medical marijuana is legal and may inspire additional relaxation of marijuana laws beyond those states. Chances for that in Florida appear slim.

Florida is going backward in marijuana policy. Last year Gov. Charlie Crist signed into law a measure that lumps drug dealers and small-time users into the same category by declaring that anyone caught with as few as 25 marijuana plants is a dealer (the federal threshold for the dealer designation is 100 plants). Florida's marijuana-possession law is among the harshest in the country. There is no medical- marijuana exception in Florida.

Prohibiting marijuana's growth and use encourages crime, encourages corruption in law enforcement, drives up the drug's price, makes it more attractive to those who like to rebel and break rules, and diverts billions of dollars in court and incarceration costs. Hundreds of thousands of lives are wrecked every year as men and women count days in prison or on probation instead of at work and in their families.

Marijuana, for medical uses or not, should be legalized, regulated and taxed. In Florida, it would have the double benefit of providing relief to sufferers of cancer and other illnesses while providing the state much-needed revenue -- and saving it millions in dollars no longer going up in the smoke of marijuana prosecutions and superstitions.

(Copyright 2009, The News-Journal Corporation)

__________________
"The highest realms of thought are impossible to reach without first attaining to an understanding of compassion" SOCRATES, 470-399 BC

seattle420lover

If Americans truly want to reduce honest hard drug addiction rates
("PLAAD wants more people to get involved in drug fight," May 26) We
must re-legalize the relatively safe, socially acceptable, God-given
plant cannabis (marijuana).

After all the reefer madness lies, half-truths and propaganda
government and law enforcement say about cannabis, how do citizens,
and especially youth, know they're being told the truth about meth,
heroin and other dangerous substances? According to President Bush's
administration reports, cannabis is the biggest problem in North
America, not heroin or meth. Today's pot is more like cocaine,
causing cancer and all. Cannabis which has never killed anyone in
over 5,000 years of documented use, is a Schedule I substance right
next to heroin, while meth is only rated a Schedule II substance - so
heroin and meth must not be a big deal, right? Telling the truth
about cannabis helps attain credibility with honest hard drugs.
Because honesty is the best policy.

Stan White,

Dillon, Colo.

__________________
"The highest realms of thought are impossible to reach without first attaining to an understanding of compassion" SOCRATES, 470-399 BC