The D'Alliance

Test

2010-03-23T15:47:00.003-04:00

Test

GOP and Dems Agree: Crack/Powder Cocaine Disparity Unjust and Needs Reform

2010-03-23T15:29:00.005-04:00

The U.S. Senate has unanimously approved bi-partisan legislation reforming a failed two-decade old policy.

by Bill Piper and Jasmine Tyler

Originally published on March 18, 2010, on AlterNet.

On almost every issue Democrats and Republicans are viciously fighting each other. A surprising exception, however, is reducing the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity. The U.S. Senate unanimously approved bi-partisan legislation yesterday reforming this two-decade old policy. The original bill, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2009 (S. 1789), was introduced by Sen. Durbin, D-IL, and was intended to completely eliminate the disparity. It was amended in committee, however, to just reduce the 100 to 1 disparity to 18 to 1 in order to get bipartisan and unanimous support. The amended bill passed the full Senate last night. While they bicker over healthcare, unemployment, education and other issues, Senators agree that U.S. drug laws are too harsh and need to be reformed.

Pharmacologically the same drug, crack and powder cocaine are treated very differently within the walls of the criminal justice system. Current policy generates a 100 to 1 penalty ratio for crack-related offenses. For instance, distribution of only 5 grams of crack cocaine (about a thimble full) yields a 5 year mandatory minimum sentence. It takes 500 grams of powder cocaine, however, to prompt the same sentence. Crack cocaine is also the only drug for which the first offense of simple possession can trigger a 5 year mandatory minimum sentence. Simple possession of any quantity of any other substance by a first time offender - including powder cocaine - is a misdemeanor offense punishable by a maximum of one year in prison.

When the crack/powder disparity was enacted into law in the 1980s, crack cocaine was believed to be more addictive and more dangerous than powder cocaine. Copious amounts of research, including a recent study by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, have shown that the myths first associated with crack cocaine, and the basis for the harsher sentencing scheme, were erroneous or exaggerated. For over two decades, powder cocaine and crack cocaine offenders have been sentenced differently, even though scientific evidence, including a major study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, has proven that crack and powder cocaine have similar physiological and psychoactive effects on the human body.

Even though two-thirds of crack cocaine users are white, more than 80% of those convicted in federal court for crack cocaine offenses are African American. Moreover, two-thirds of those convicted have only a low-level involvement in the drug trade. Less than 2% of federal crack defendants are high-level suppliers of cocaine. Taxpayer money should be spent wisely, and concentrating federal law enforcement and criminal justice resources on arresting and incarcerating low-level, largely nonviolent offenders has done nothing to reduce the problems associated with substance misuse.

Equalizing sentences for crack cocaine and powder cocaine would eliminate the most glaring instance of racial disparities in the criminal justice system and focus federal law enforcement resources on higher-level traffickers. The House Judiciary Committee approved legislation last year that would completely eliminate the disparity. Advocates fought hard to pass Senate legislation eliminating the disparity, but Democrats and Republicans worked out a compromise to reduce the disparity to 18-1 instead. The revised bill passed the full Senate under an expedited process designed to move uncontroversial bills that have unanimous support (or at least no formal opposition).

This Senate bill is a move in the right direction - many, many families will benefit from the change - but it obviously doesn't go far enough. Members of Congress need to know that advocates of change consider this bill to be only a down payment on completely eliminating the disparity, and a stepping stone to reforming punitive drug policies more broadly. Despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars and arresting millions of Americans, drugs remain cheap, potent, and readily available. Meanwhile the war on drugs is creating huge racial disparities, filling prisons with nonviolent offenders, and fueling prohibition-related violence on both sides of the U.S./Mexico border. It is time for massive change. Reducing the crack/powder disparity is the first step of many.

Bill Piper and Jasmine Tyler are Director and Deputy Director of National Affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance.

Denmark's First Heroin Assisted Treatment Clinics to Open this Week

2010-03-09T17:30:00.007-05:00

Denmark is the latest country to offer heroin assisted treatment (HAT). After reviewing trials in Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and Great Britain, the Danish parliament determined that HAT was an effective treatment method, and legislators approved the implementation of a Danish program without first mandating another trial. The program's first two clinics, both in Copenhagen, will open Thursday.

Michael Jourdan of Copenhagen's Centre of Alcohol and Drug Research provides more details below:

COPENHAGEN - After many years of debate Denmark is now joining the exclusive club of nations in which prescription of heroin to addicts is possible.

The motion to do so passed through parliament by an overwhelming majority 178-1 two years ago. Now, the preparatory phase of working out the guidelines, training treatment staff and addressing a myriad of devilish details is over. Thursday the 11th of March marks the official opening of the capital's first two heroin clinics. Later this year the cities of Aarhus, Odense - the birthplace of Hans Christian Andersen - and Esbjerg will follow.

The Danish model is not a trial with a closing date and a strict scientific protocol, because yet another trial has been deemed unnecessary. Having closely monitored the heroin trials of Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and Great Britain, the Danes have concluded that the evidence is in. Prescribed heroin is feasible, beneficial, safe, cost effective, and yielding better results with some addicts than other forms of substitution treatment.

The international treaties allow for scientific or medical use. By including heroin in the pharmacopoeia for the specific purpose of treatment of addiction the Danes have gone straight for the medical option. A small number of specialist medical doctors have been empowered to make legal requisitions from two appointed suppliers of pharmaceutical heroin (diacetylmorphine). Under the supervision of these specialists medical staff at the 5 treatment centres can adjust dose to fit the individual patients. A target group has been set to 3-400 addicts who have not benefited from methadone and continue injecting illegal drugs with detrimental health effect. Two daily injections are allowed, supplemented by take home doses of methadone. The medical treatment is integrated in a comprehensive treatment programme offering psycho-social support to all users. All prescriptions and outcomes are closely monitored by the Danish National Board of Health.

Even before opening, the clinics have attracted considerable attention. Nationally, support is massive, but critics have voiced concern that the guidelines are too restrictive and the setup of the clinics too burdensome for the users - that in effect the whole effort is set up to fail. However, in the Danish model, adhering to a strict scientific protocol is not an issue. Though one could say from the outset that the many tricky issues of prescribing heroin have been dealt with in a manner that could be described as erring on the side of caution, modification in the form of revision of guidelines and adjustment of practice is possible if and when experience shows need for change.

Perhaps the Danish way of setting up this treatment modality could be dubbed version 2.0. Time will tell whether other nations will set up programs inspired by the Danish approach.

- Michael Jourdan, Centre of Alcohol and Drug Research, Copenhagen

Spice Wars

2010-02-22T14:31:00.003-05:00

There's a new substance on drug prohibitionists' hit list. Spice, also known as K2, is an herbal incense blend sprayed with a synthetic compound that chemically mimics THC. Right now, a relatively small number of people have used Spice, but new attention from lawmakers and the media is sure to raise its profile - showing exactly why a reactionary approach to drugs and drug use is always counterproductive.

Legislators in Kansas and Missouri are considering banning Spice, and the media has seized onto the drug war hysteria. In the past week, news outlets across the country have reported on Spice, and many have regurgitated the alarmist rhetoric of those pushing a ban. Some sample headlines:

"Cops: Imitation pot as bad as the real thing"

"K2 - the new buzz on the street"

"Fake Weed (Spice, Genie, K2) Getting Kids High, But There's Nothing Cops Can Do"

In most respects, it's a familiar story. The government bans one drug (marijuana), so people seek a legal alternative (Spice). Drug war proponents then employ scare tactics claiming the alternative drug is the next big threat, and the media plays into the hype. Lawmakers hoping to appear "tough on crime" seek to ban the new drug. And the cycle continues.

But I'm curious to see how effective the fear-mongering around Spice will be now that support for ending marijuana prohibition is so widespread. Will the public really be so up in arms about a marijuana-like substance when the most recent polling shows nearly half the country in favor of legalizing marijuana outright and a substantial majority in favor of allowing medical marijuana access?

It seems like the tide is turning, and, hopefully, more people than ever will recognize the hypocrisy of drug war scare tactics.

Can Heroin-Assisted Treatment Happen Here?

2010-01-21T17:21:00.003-05:00

Those of us in the drug policy reform movement have learned time and again that the most effective solution to a drug-related social problem is often counterintuitive.

One clear example of this trend is heroin-assisted treatment (HAT), an approach to helping otherwise treatment-resistant heroin addicts using well-monitored doses of the drug itself. HAT programs provide a safe place to inject for those users most at risk of contracting a disease or suffering an overdose.

I got to learn more about this harm reduction strategy last night at a DPA-sponsored panel on HAT at George Washington University in Washington, DC. The event featured an international panel of health professionals, researchers, and advocates familiar with the topic.

Donald MacPherson, former Drug Policy Coordinator for the City of Vancouver, spoke about the heroin-assisted treatment program he oversaw in his city. Dr. David Marsh shared his experiences as one of the lead researchers in the North American Opiate Medication Initiative (NAOMI) trial of prescription heroin in Canada. Peter Reuter, a University of Maryland professor and leading scholar on heroin maintenance, discussed treatment programs in Switzerland and the Netherlands. And DPA Executive Director Ethan Nadelmann spoke about the prospect of implementing a heroin-assisted treatment program or trial in the United States.

DC's Ward 6 councilmember, Tommy Wells, also spoke, and it was heartening to see a DC politician there in support of HAT, as DPA's DC Metro program has been investigating whether creating a HAT pilot program in the District is feasible. Washington, DC has one of the highest rates of HIV/AIDS in the country, and many contracted the disease through injection drug use.

I came away from the panel with an understanding that the most important step we can take to make heroin-assisted treatment a reality in the United States is to change perceptions about the people these programs would help.

Why have other countries been able to institute heroin-assisted treatment programs or trials while the prospect of doing so here in the U.S. still seems so far off? Because in the United States drug users are too often characterized as criminals and unworthy of help. The stigma associated with heroin use in the United States is the main reason HAT is not widely accepted in the U.S. as a viable treatment option.

The key to gaining acceptance for this kind of treatment is combating this stigma and convincing people that saving a life, under any circumstances, is more important than projecting a "tough on crime" image. As David Marsh put it, speaking of his two young grandchildren, "I would never want to say to them that I had the chance to stop people from dying, but I didn't do it because I was afraid it would send them the wrong message."

Read more on heroin-assisted treatment.

Ethan Nadelmann is a Change.org Changemaker

2010-01-13T16:32:00.001-05:00

DPA Executive Director Ethan Nadelmann was chosen by Change.org members as one of the site's Changemakers.

Ethan's selection means that through a series of featured posts, he will have the opportunity to engage the Change.org community in a dialogue about ending the drug war and pursuing smarter drug policies based on science, compassion and human rights.

Check out Ethan's first post, "The War on Drugs is a War on People."

Update: NYC Harm Reduction Pamphlet Will Stay in Circulation

2010-01-07T13:45:00.002-05:00

Housing Works' Diana Scholl tells us that "Take Charge, Take Care," the safer injection pamphlet being distributed by the New York City Health Department will stay in circulation. Read her post on Housing Works' website.

Following an agreement between Health Department and City Council officials, the Health Department will continue to distribute the pamphlet, but it will no longer be available on the internet.

Drug War Proponents Attack NYC Harm Reduction Pamphlet

2010-01-06T12:26:00.004-05:00

A smart, compassionate move by the New York City Health Department to promote safer practices among heroin users has come under fire from drug war proponents. A harm reduction pamphlet called "Take Charge, Take Care" has been called a "how-to guide" for heroin use [NYT], but I can't help suspecting that these criticisms are fueled more by a callous disregard for the health and safety of heroin users than by any real concern that kids in New York City will pick up a pamphlet and decide to start injecting heroin.

The Health Department is acknowledging that no matter what drug control policies are in place, some people will still use heroin, and those who use should be informed so they can do so as safely as possible. The pamphlet advises heroin users to inject with others present so they are not alone if an overdose or some other complication occurs. "Take Charge, Take Care" also promotes safer injection techniques to help users better avoid disease and infection.

The New York Post ran a negative piece on the Health Department publication earlier this week, but readers shot back with three strong, thoughtful letters-to-the-editor in support of the harm reduction pamphlet. Read them here.

You can also check out DPA Communications Specialist Anthony Papa's defense of "Take Charge, Take Care" on Counterpunch.

Marijuana Reform Momentum Grows

2009-12-12T17:03:00.006-05:00

A new poll by Angus Reid confirms that the support for marijuana tax and regulation is indeed growing. The poll, sampling 1004 American voters, found that 53% of those responded believe that marijuana should be legalized. This is a nearly 10 point increase from a poll conducted by Gallup (look at the title of the poll) a couple of months ago found that 44% favored marijuana legalization. Among other questions conducted by Angus Reid, the poll also found that 68% of respondents believe that the war on drugs is a failure -- but 8% of Republicans and, interestingly, 11% of Democrats believe it to be a success.

The issue with these polls is that they are not properly nuanced. Neither poll (Angus nor Gallup) offered marijuana legalization specifics; they just simply asked the question if marijuana should be legalized. It may be the case that if a more detailed question was asked -- such as asking if treating marijuana with the same regulations as alcohol and cigarettes with age and place restrictions introduced -- may garner even more support of lifting marijuana prohibition. It would also be interesting to ask whether the respondents had smoked marijuana themselves, knew anyone who smoked marijuana, or ever been arrested for marijuana possession. So if anyone wants to know these answers and more, please send me $15 grand to hire a pollster -- it is tax deductible and the end of the year is approaching fast.

The poll also measured responses to the legalization of other drugs; the results are not too surprising:

Victories for Drug Policy Reform

2009-12-09T17:42:00.002-05:00

Reformers are set to record some major victories in the fight to dismantle the failed war on drugs. Here's a rundown:

Congress is expected to pass an omnibus spending bill that includes

a provision eliminating the ban on federal funding for syringe exchange programs, a policy that has undermined disease prevention efforts for decades and resulted in tens of thousands of people contracting HIV/AIDS or hepatitis C.
language ending restrictions preventing Washington, DC from implementing the medical marijuana imitative voters approved way back in 1998.

The Drug Policy Alliance has been working for years to achieve these reforms, and the fact that these changes are imminent shows that Congress is finally starting to change it's thinking on drug policy issues.

Progress is also happening on the state level. New Jersey is on the verge of ending mandatory minimum sentencing for some nonviolent drug offenses and becoming the 14th state to legalize medical marijuana.

New Jersey's progress comes after Rhode Island's elimination of mandatory minimums, Maine's approval of a medical marijuana distribution system, and New York's repeal of the draconian Rockefeller drug laws.

Want more reasons to celebrate? Read "10 Signs the Failed Drug War Is Finally Ending" by DPA's Tony Newman.

Reflections on Reform Conference 2009

2009-11-24T10:06:00.002-05:00

This month in Albuquerque, NM I attended my first International Drug Policy Reform Conference (I'm in my sixth month as a member of the Drug Policy Alliance staff). I expected going in that the conference would give me a more comprehensive sense of where the drug policy reform movement is headed, but I wasn't quite prepared for the degree to which the conference would reshape the way I conceptualize my own activism and how my position in the drug policy reform movement connects me to other social and political movements.

Attending the conference helped me gain a new perspective on something I've been thinking about for years now- how do all the causes within the so-called "progressive movement" overlap? How can we better facilitate coalition building within a movement comprised of individuals with a myriad of different passions, motivations, and ideologies. And how can we change attitudes within the movement to alter the power hierarchies that so often marginalize people based on gender, race, socioeconomic status, and various other factors?

My time at the Reform Conference didn't provide me with neatly packaged answers to these questions. While I was impressed with the diversity of the conference participants, there were times when the inequities within the reform movement became very clear. As in every progressive movement, there is discrimination and marginalization within the drug policy movement. Even at the conference, for example, an honest, wide-ranging discussion of gender was relegated to a couple panels and remained largely absent from the major plenary sessions. So much of the decision-making power in the reform community still lies with a largely white male elite.

Yet, even dismayed by the obvious inequities with in the reform community, I was exceedingly hopeful during my three days at the conference because I realized that, with this gathering, our movement already has in place a forum in which nearly every stakeholder group in the drug policy reform movement is represented. With former and current drug users, cops, family members of overdose victims, research scientists, formerly incarcerated individuals, harm reductionists, students, and so many others gathered in the same building, we have the perfect venue to acknowledge and address serious problems within the movement and to build the unlikely bridges we absolutely need to build to take our efforts to the next level.

The personal stories of the speakers I heard and the people I met gave me a more tangible sense of how the movement to end the drug war intersects with various other progressive causes. Some of these intersections I already understood pretty clearly. It's easy to see how ending the drug war would be a primary goal of the prison reform movement and an essential step toward achieving racial justice. But until the conference, I hadn't full conceptualized how the drug policy reform movement intersects with the reproductive rights movement when women who use drugs face criminal charges or other penalties for choosing to carry their pregnancies to term. I hadn't been able to adequately explain how it intersects with the gay rights movement through a common conviction to end the government's policing of our bodies.

I believe that to change enough minds to succeed in ending the drug war, we need to build coalitions, and not just the obvious ones. We need to build bridges with unlikely allies. If we show the failures of the drug war through enough lenses, we're bound to win over at least some of the people we've been unable to reach until now.

With the Reform Conference, we have a great platform to discuss how our varied personal experiences led us seek the common goal of dismantling the drug war. From there, we can learn from each other how to make our movement stronger by adding more voices to the conversation and moving to the center of the discussion voices that have until now been marginalized.

More from the conference: Watch videos, view presentations and our twitter feed, read the conference program and more.

UK Drug Advisor Sacked for Classifying Drugs Based on Science

2009-11-05T13:27:00.003-05:00

Politics triumphed over science in the UK last week when the head of the country's drug advisory council, David Nutt, was forced to resign after releasing a report in which he and his colleagues classify drugs based on their potential to cause harm rather than the legal classification assigned to them by the British government. The report groups alcohol among the most dangerous drugs and marijuana among the least.

Nutt has said that several members of the council will join him in forming an independent drug advisory group if the government doesn't reverse its position by next week.

The situation in the UK mirrors that of France in 1998, when French health official Bernard Roques released a similar report questioning that nation's existing drug classification system. That report also named alcohol as one of the more harmful substances and placed marijuana on the lower end of the spectrum. The French government made moves to reclassify drugs based on the report's findings, but, following backlash from the alcohol industry, a watered down version of the report became the basis for France's new drug policy.

Nutt's firing is disheartening because it comes at a time when other European countries (see previous posts on Germany and Portugal) are forging ahead with drug policies based on science and a genuine interest in reducing harm.

It will be interesting to see how this story unfolds and, particularly, whether it receives attention in the U.S., because the Office of National Drug Control Policy is currently working on its own three-year drug policy strategy to be released early next year. Will the U.S., like the UK, continue to ignore scientific fact and reinforce the same, failed drug war policies? Or will the new drug czar take a new approach based on science and human rights?

Want to speak out against David Nutt's firing? Join the Facebook group calling for his reinstatement.

More of the Same. Seriously?

2009-11-01T21:29:00.003-05:00

Joint Cause Commercial from Wil Wells on Vimeo.

Along the same vein of stupidity and general unwillingness to have an honest dialogue with ~~anyone who doesn't agree with them~~ youth about drug use, here is a gem of a video from Californians for Drug Free Youth (CADFY).

This "commercial" was released in opposition to California's marijuana tax and regulate bill, which had its first hearing on Wednesday. Note: CADFY's url is www.jointcause.com -- I doubt they even know why I laughed for 5 minutes when I learned that.

Of course, if you are a drug warrior, and base an argumentation on the word "seriously?", you generally make drug policy reformers who engage in science-based policy look even more legit. So to thank them, you can write on CADFY's facebook page.

That's right, drug prohibitionists are now using modern technology to disseminate antiquated ideas.

Always Clean Out Your Bong

2009-10-25T22:09:00.009-04:00

To counterbalance a more enlightened federal policy toward patients and suppliers of medical marijuana, Minnesota's highest court ruled (don't think I've linked to Fox News before) that those who possess bong water can be prosecuted for possessing a narcotic mixture.

A Minnesota woman can be charged for a controlled substance, a first-degree drug crime (25 grams or more of a controlled substance), by possessing 37 grams -- about 2.5 tablespoons -- of bong water that tested positive for methamphetamine.

The decision effectively reverses two lower court rulings that found that charging Sara Peck with 37 grams of methamphetamine-laced water as a first-degree narcotic possession is pretty much crap. The high court (pun very much intended -- although I know plenty of people that make better decisions while high) found that since the drug water counts as a "mixture" under state law, meaning "a preparation, compound, mixture, or substance containing a controlled substance, regardless of purity", Peck can be charged with the higher offense that carries a possible sentence of 7 years 2 months, while a possession of drug paraphernalia carries a $300 fine and a petty misdemeanor conviction that would not be on her record. A narcotics officer testified that drug users sometimes drink or inject the bong water (I really don't know if this is the case for people who use meth, but it doesn't seem realistic).

This decision ushers in the possibility of extracting plea deals by trumping up drug charges. It also, more disturbingly, expands the possibilities of what warrants a drug indictment. Would my blood, since it may contain controlled substances, be subject to supoena? Or my urine? If I set foot on Minnesotan soil, will police be waiting at the baggage gate to arrest my bladder?

This is a clearly terribly worded penal provision, that acts as a exploitative tool by unhinged prosecutors that seek to pile on charges to get convictions. It also may realize the possibility that those who violate parole or probation with a dirty urine could then be charged with possessing a narcotic "mixture".

This is a teaching moment for hygiene: 1) always make sure your bong is clean and 2) pee frequently!

I think we all are SOL regarding the blood issue.

The War Against Dispensaries

2009-10-22T13:03:00.004-04:00

We're all cheering the new federal medical marijuana guidelines that direct prosecutors not to arrest law-abiding patients in medical marijuana states. But of course, it remains to be seen what prosecutors will do with those guidelines.

I just read a piece in which criminal defense lawyer Allison Margolin shines a light on the Los Angeles District Attorney's campaign to shut down dispensaries in her city. The whole piece is worth a read -- Margolin makes a convincing case that prosecuting medical marijuana operators is economically foolish and legally problematic -- but one paragraph in particular jumped out at me. Regardless of whether we think California's dispensaries need more regulation, we would all do well to consider the following:

The media has focused on the fact that dispensaries in LA have mushroomed over the past year, and on the ease with which marijuana users are obtaining recommendations. No one has focused on the fact that the war against dispensaries, is another chapter in the escalation of the drug war, another excuse to send people to state prison, another mechanism to disenfranchise people whose medicine is not respected by law enforcement or the LA District Attorney's office as legitimate.

Newsweek Profiles Ethan Nadelmann

2009-10-16T22:20:00.001-04:00

Newsweek just came out with a profile of DPA's executive director, Ethan Nadelmann. It's a pretty great read. Posted here is the video profile on Ethan.

Major Rockefeller Drug Law Reform Provision Goes Into Effect

2009-10-10T20:58:00.003-04:00

On Wednesday, major provisions of the Rockefeller Drug Law Reforms signed into law in April went into effect: restoring sentencing decisions in most (but unfortunately not all) drug cases, and allowing nearly 1,500 people serving time in prison for B drug felonies under the old Rocky law to petition for resentencing.

It is the first time in 36 years that New York State drug laws place the power of sentencing decisions in the hands of judges, who can now take into account the totality of the circumstances when someone is convicted of a drug offense to fashion the appropriate sentence -- whether it be treatment or other alternatives to incarceration programs, probation, or parole -- and make a prison sentence the last resort.

You can read more about the new provisions that go into effect from DPA's gabriel sayegh here, and get more info (fact sheet) on the reforms here.

This reform of mandatory minimum drug sentencing provisions indicates a real shift that focuses drug abuse and dependence as a health issue, rather than addressing it solely as a criminal justice matter. Although there is far to go, New York can show the nation that while it was the first state in the country to adopt such misguided and racist laws, they can now become a national leader by using effective community-based alternatives to incarceration to address drugs as a public health and safety matter, not a prison one.

Stiletto Stoners and the Drug War

2009-10-02T10:42:00.010-04:00

Much has been made about the new Marie Claire article "Stiletto Stoners" that profiles several successful white women who smoke pot. I am on the fence about this article. On the one hand, it does tap into a readership and highlight a class of people that should be included in the conversation about responsible cannabis use and the need to normalize a behavior that is already...well, normal.

But on the other hand, in the larger context of the war on drugs, it is a narcissistic piece that highlights the lives of people that are not affected by the consequences of prohibition in the least. It is almost as if Marie Claire is saying SOME people can smoke pot responsibly, principally these well to do white women who appear to be the readership of the magazine, but OTHERS should probably get their lives together before they indulge in something far less harmful that alcohol.

Keep in mind that those that lead lives of privilege smoke possibly unaware that over 850,000 are arrested annually for marijuana, and 90% of those arrests are for possession only. And while every adult should be free to smoke, eat, vaporize, etc marijuana unencumbered or frightened by possible arrest, it still remains that marijuana arrests, like all drugs arrests, are racially screwed. Take New York City for insistence, where 40,000 people are arrested per year for small amounts of marijuana, and 87% of those arrested are people of color.

That being said, it is important to explore every facet of the marijuana conversation, and this is a worthwhile component. Hopefully more people are inspired to start coming out of the marijuana using closet -- and maybe even show his or her face.

And also, the story inspired a pretty great video on Today.

Len Bias law conviction in Wisconsin

2009-09-25T17:07:00.004-04:00

Nineteen-year-old Casey Gogos of Green Bay, WI was convicted yesterday on homicide charges in the death of a 17-year-old who died after overdosing on heroin allegedly supplied by Gogos. He faces up to 52 years in prison.

Wisconsin is one of several states with a Len Bias law, named after the Maryland basketball player who in 1986 famously died of a heart attack after taking cocaine. These laws allow for homicide charges to be brought against individuals who supply drugs that later contribute to the death of another person. (Bias's death also set into motion a host of other drug war measures, including mandatory minimums, crack/powder sentencing disparities and school-zone laws.)

Even though I know these laws exist, and I shouldn't be surprised considering all the political grandstanding that goes into crafting our nation's drug laws, it still shocks me every time I hear about someone being held solely responsible for a death resulting from someone else's uncoerced actions.

Especially mind-blowing is that even people doing drugs with someone who dies of an overdose can be prosecuted. These are often the only people who can call for help, and yet the law provides them with a disincentive to call 911.

Why is the reaction to drug deaths always to find more ways to put people in prison, rather than educating people about how to actually prevent drug deaths?

Marijuana Monday

2009-09-14T19:39:00.003-04:00

Even though ~~I am~~ some people are suffering from a case of the Mondays, there is some great media coverage today about the marijuana legalization debate. Four articles about marijuana legalization from large media publications were published today. Just wanted to let you guys know that these are out there.

AM New York (for those of you who take the subway) has a great front page! article about the dramatic marijuana arrest epidemic that has crowned NYC the marijuana arrest capital of the world. DPA's director or media relations, Tony Newman, is quoted within the article.

Fortune Magazine has a comprehensive story about the medical marijuana dispensaries in California. They ask the question: Is the end of marijuana prohibition among us? DPA's executive director, Ethan Nadelmann, is quoted in the article.

New York Magazine's Mark Jacobson has an excellent piece also about marijuana arrests in New York City, splicing in anecdotes and other pieces of marijuana-related culture in the Big Apple.

The Washington Post provides a nice anecdotal story about the younger generation's views on marijuana legalization. It as also invokes Maryland's little known medical marijuana defense known as medical necessity (2nd post down).

At Least Barney Fife Wasn't Dangerous

2009-09-11T16:03:00.003-04:00

Today's swat-style home invasion is brought to you by the DEA in conjunction with the New York Police Department. (author's note: when I google image searched for "NYPD cartoons", I was reminded of this -- some people are just full of hate.) The New York Daily News reports a botched raid by the DEA, backed up by the NYPD, on a reputed gang boss.

The reasoning behind the raid -- Ruiz's apartment acted as a stash house -- seems highly suspicious. The adage drug sellers try to adhere to (at least in the movies) is "you don't shit where you eat". It makes sense that this would apply to a boss in a violent drug gang. Why would he have his own apartment be a stash house? Methinks it's simply shoddy police work. This is reaffirmed for two reasons: 1) while the DEA was raiding the house, the DEA was actually arresting Ruiz elsewhere in NYC and, more importantly 2) they raided the wrong house!

The warrant listed the wrong apartment, and the article seems to indicate that while Ruiz used to live in the building, he had not lived there for a few years. Instead, the DEA scared the living crap out of a mother and daughter, ages 48 and 19 years old respectively. Not only did the two continually insist while these paramilitary were trashing their apartment that they had the wrong apartment, the NYPD even scrolled through the daughter's pictures on the computer and laughed at the two women on the beach.

The police and DEA eventually left, muttering what I would imagine was the most insincere apology ever spoken in New York. Then again, what would you expect?

What Would Prosecutors Do?

2009-09-05T18:58:00.002-04:00

Below is a Huffington Post piece that Tony Newman, DPA's Media Relations director, wrote about the NYC Manhattan District Attorney's race. At the debate, two of the candidates made some rather revealing statements about past drug use. Tony has a great commentary about the hypocrisy of it all.

Candidates Drug Use Not A Deal Breaker, But Hypocrisy On Issue Should Be!

At Tuesday's debate in the race for Manhattan District Attorney, two of the three candidates admitted to cocaine use. When the candidates were asked if they used any illegal drugs besides marijuana, both Cy Vance and Richard Aborn admitted to trying cocaine in the past.

We seem to have come a long way from when Douglas Ginsberg was bumped from consideration for a Supreme Court position because he had tried marijuana in the 70's. Now it is almost impossible to find a presidential candidate who has not tried marijuana. It has become so commonplace for elected officials to admit marijuana use that the question has progressed to whether candidates have tried an illegal drug besides marijuana.

President Obama broke ground as a candidate when he wrote openly about not only using marijuana, but trying cocaine when he was in high-school. I can't remember a presidential candidate admitting to using a "hard drug". Obama's drug use clearly had no negative impact with voters. I believe his honesty helped him by humanizing him with both young voters and baby boomers. Voters appreciated some straight talk compared to President George Bush refusing to answer questions about his "youthful indiscretions" and Bill "I never inhaled" Clinton. Ironically, the candidate who suffered the most damage from Obama's past drug use was Hillary Clinton, when Bill Shaheen, Clinton's New Hampshire co-chair, had to step down after going after Obama for his past drug use.

Another high-level elected official who admitted to cocaine use and received a public shrug in response was Governor David Paterson, who admitted to cocaine use days after he became governor following Eliot Spitzer's resignation over having patronized a prostitute. Governor Paterson has recently taken heat for a range of reasons, but his cocaine use is notably not one of them.

Now we have two candidates running for District Attorney of Manhattan, one the of the most powerful law enforcement jobs in the country, admitting to cocaine use. I predict it will not be a major issue and it shouldn't be. The reason past cocaine use by Obama and Paterson and Vance and Aborn use has not been a huge problem for them is that they don't have hugely hypocritical political views on substance abuse. All four of these elected officials/candidates have advocated for alternatives to prison for low-level drug offenders. President Obama has stated he wants drugs to be treated more as a public health than a criminal justice issue. Governor Paterson worked for years to reform New York's draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws. Vance and Aborn both opposed the Rockefeller Drug Laws and Aborn is calling for a debate on decriminalizing marijuana.

The problem for voters is when there is hypocrisy. The reason the Spitzer prostitute scandal was so damaging is because he was actively prosecuting prostitution at the same time he was enjoying the services of prostitutes.

Hypocrisy is what bothers me. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is currently running for reelection. When asked years ago if he had smoked marijuana he said yes, and even added that he enjoyed it. Yet under Mayor Bloomberg, New York has the shameful distinction of being marijuana arrest capital of the world. Last year 40,000 New Yorkers were arrested and jailed on low-level pot possession charges. More people have been arrested on marijuana possession charges under Mayor Bloomberg than any elected official in history!

It is encouraging that past drug use by candidates and elected officials are being discussed more openly and voters are less judgmental. What we need now is for voters to punish elected officials who are willing to ruin other people's lives with arrest and incarceration for doing similar things in their lives.

Maryland's Medical Marijuana Law Lacks Substance

2009-09-04T13:45:00.003-04:00

I was pleased to hear some refreshing news come out of Montgomery County, Maryland last week - judges in two medical marijuana cases handed down light sentences to patients convicted on possession charges.

William York walked out of the courthouse with a $100 fine, and Winnie Gesumwa had her fine waived, due to Maryland's medical marijuana law, which caps the sentence for marijuana possession at a $100 fine if defendants can prove they use the drug for medical purposes.
While assuring, theses rulings have also drawn attention to the tremendous shortcomings of the Maryland law, particularly its ambiguity and lack of essential protections for patients and caregivers.

The Darrell Putman Compassionate Use Act does not require the state to maintain a registry of medical marijuana patients, a resource that would help keep people using the drug for medical purposes out of the criminal justice system. The law contains no safe access provision, so patients still have to buy marijuana off the street rather than from dispensaries. And if patients are prosecuted for possession, they have no recourse to seek refunds for legal fees.

Essentially, the law is useless to most of its intended beneficiaries.

Currently, the sentences meted out to Maryland's medical marijuana patients convicted on pot charges depend entirely on the legal representation available to them and the individual judges assigned to their cases. Those who've received fines have generally benefited from lawyers familiar with medical marijuana law and capable of mounting a trenchant argument that marijuana is a medical necessity for their clients. They've also been lucky enough to have their cases heard by judges willing to show leniency toward medical marijuana patients. Not all judges are, and lawyers knowledgeable about the Compassionate Use Act are hard to come by.

Without a law that clearly outlines protections for patients and caregivers, these inconsistencies in sentencing will continue, but the Maryland legislature has been maddeningly hesitant to improve the current law. Last year, legislators failed even to pass a bill that would have created a taskforce to assemble a set of best practices for medical marijuana law that could guide reforms in Maryland.

There's a good chance another taskforce bill will be introduced this fall, and I hope lawmakers will reconsider. It's a small step toward much needed reforms, but a step forward nonetheless. Maryland owes its medical marijuana patients a law with some substance.

Argentine Court: Prison Time for Marijuana Possession Unconstitutional

2009-08-25T16:48:00.005-04:00

Argentina's Supreme Court ruled today that imprisoning people for possessing small amounts of marijuana is unconstitutional. The seven judges rule unanimously, stating:

"Each individual adult is responsible for making decisions freely about their desired lifestyle without state interference. Private conduct is allowed unless it constitutes a real danger or causes damage to property or the rights of others."

The ruling follows Mexico's decision to decriminalize drug possession for personal use less than a week earlier.

After the ruling, Argentina's Cabinet Chief Anibal Fernandez celebrated the end of "the repressive politics invented by the Nixon administration."

I'm looking forward to seeing how Argentina's drug laws change in the wake of this ruling. It's heartening to see another country denouncing the imposition of U.S. drug war policies on the rest of the world.

Mexico Decriminalizes Possession of Small Amounts of Drugs

2009-08-21T12:26:00.011-04:00

On Thursday, Mexico decriminalized possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use. But don't start celebrating that common sense and the freedom to put things into your body absent harm to others was the rationale for drug decrim within our southern neighbor's borders. Nope. It's simply that since the U.S. demand for drugs from Mexico has fueled unprecedented cartel violence there, arresting and prosecuting people for small amounts of drugs is just simply a stretch of U.S. complicity of human rights abuses finite resources.

After all, there have been over 11,000 drug-related deaths since 2006 -- 7,500 since the beginning of 2008 -- sparked by several cartels not only fighting the country's police forces, but also fighting amongst themselves to gain more control of the drug trade.

Now, it's apparent that this act by the Mexican government which, by the way, was also passed by the Mexican Legislature in 2006 only to be buried under pressure by the U.S., won't stem the violence by the cartels because the criminalization that drives black market profit (mostly from U.S. demand) will remain.

But it is telling that the Mexican government recognizes that criminalizing small amounts of drugs for personal use is an ineffective policy that takes vital resources away from dealing with the cartels -- although combating cartel violence will continue to be ineffective because ONDCP won't even consider marijuana tax and regulation, even though marijuana continues to be the cartels' #1 moneymaker. Portugal has decriminalized drugs for almost ten years, and by many measurements this policy has produced decreased drug use and increased treatment admissions.

Innovative drug policies implemented by our neighbors to the north, including supervised injection facilities and heroin maintenance programs, are now bolstered by decrim from the south. The mighty U.S. drug policy machine is now surrounded by some alternative approaches (how some of these approaches are implemented remains to be seen) from two countries that suffer their greatest casualties, and attempts to change their prohibition-based course are largely undermined because of, U.S. drug policy.

The next move is ours.