• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Uncooperative Tom

Drug Prohibition: Still Stupid

343 posts in this topic

One cannabis arrest every 54 seconds during 2014

 

Most for possession. A colossal waste of time and money, ruining lives for no good reason.

 

Yep, still stupid.

 

The WOD could be the stupidest war of all time. For anyone who doubts it, the primary gateway drug to Heroin is Oxycodone, and people switch to Heroin not because it is stronger, but because it is cheaper. The illegal drug is cheaper to get and easier to access than a prescription drug you are not supposed to take. There is absolutely zero reason left to try and fight the WOD except to protect the industries and professions which depend on it for their profits. Nobody has been saved by this war, but plenty have been killed by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tuk Tuk will be along to point out that we have armed government agents eradicating pot plants here and protecting poppy plants in Afghanistan.

 

Which might explain the market distortions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It amazes me how little traction this thread gets and how the gun threads generate page after page day after day. The low hanging fruit in stopping gun violence, or any violence, is ending the stupid war on drugs. It is the war on drugs, more than any other thing, which contributes to:

 

1) conflicts between the police and community

2) high incarceration rates for the poor, which disproportionately affects African Americans and Hispanics

3) which then results in dead ending any escape of poverty for those who carry the scarlet letter of a drug conviction

4) gang and turf wars over territory which then catches innocent people in the crossfire

5) the money which drives illegal trafficking in arms which then flood the battlefield in the war on drugs

 

This, of course, does absolutely nothing to address the aberrations and outliers in gun violence which capture all the headlines, but it would actually save a lot of lives, would result in an improved quality of life for tens of millions of people, would offer a path out of poverty for millions of people who are trapped there, and offer the type of hope that chokes off the feed pump to gang violence. It would not just be "doing something" it would be doing something positive that would benefit all of us, or at least all of us who do not derive power and wealth from continuing this stupid unwinnable war.

 

I would add to your list:

 

6) erosion of privacy rights. The drug war has set numerous precedents unfavorable to our rights when it comes to permissible searches, technologies for surveillance and their (lack of) oversight, etc.

7) erosion of property rights. As detailed in the FAIR Act thread.

 

But the drug war concentrates power in government and provides a profit center for private prisons, law enforcement unions, and other interest groups.

 

As for the lack of interest, it's hard to get partisan Dems interested in reducing government power, especially when there's a D in the White House and we're talking about devolving that power all the way down to the individual, not just a lower level of government. So that leaves partisan Republicans, who sometimes like reducing government power but can't stand it if someone smokes a joint instead of drinking a shot of liquor.

 

So if you take away the partisan Dems and partisan Repubs from this place, what are you left with? Me, mostly.

 

But you said the G-word, so maybe this thread will attract some interest now and maybe people will stop voting for drug warriors. And maybe I'll start reeling in a fish with every cast. Hey, it COULD happen.

 

 

How about:

 

8) Not destabilising your neighbours by giving their criminal organisations more power then their governments.

 

You could argue that in a world of vastly different monetary values the US's WOD has DIRECTLY been the cause of 1,000's of deaths and cost Columbia and Mexico legitimate economy $1,000,000's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a good addition, sparau. In addition to the problems that the black market causes in those places and others, there's another problem. When the cartels are deeply intertwined with the government and have more power than the government, we get weird results here like the DEA laundering cartel money and the ATF arming cartels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

“See, if you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That's literally true.” - Milton Friedman

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uncle Milty was talking about the role of government in creating risk, which creates the opportunity for return. Even a government that refuses to launder their money and arm them is helping anyone in the drug trade by maintaining the risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DOJ Releasing Thousands of Drug Offenders

 

Hat tip to Obama.

 

...The panel estimated that its change in sentencing guidelines eventually could result in 46,000 of the nation’s approximately 100,000 drug offenders in federal prison qualifying for early release. The 6,000 figure, which has not been reported previously, is the first tranche in that process.

 

“The number of people who will be affected is quite exceptional,” said Mary Price, general counsel for Families Against Mandatory Minimums, an advocacy group that supports sentencing reform.

The Sentencing Commission estimated that an additional 8,550 inmates would be eligible for release between this Nov. 1 and Nov. 1, 2016.

 

The releases are part of a shift in the nation’s approach to criminal justice and drug sentencing that has been driven by a bipartisan consensus that mass incarceration has failed and should be reversed.

 

Along with the commission’s action, the Justice Department has instructed its prosecutors not to charge low-level, nonviolent drug offenders who have no connection to gangs or large-scale drug organizations with offenses that carry severe mandatory sentences.

 

The U.S. Sentencing Commission voted unanimously for the reduction last year after holding two public hearings in which members heard testimony from then-Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., federal judges, federal public defenders, state and local law enforcement officials, and sentencing advocates. The panel also received more than 80,000 public comment letters, with the overwhelming majority favoring the change...

 

 

It has failed because the black market replaces those who are caught before the justice system can sentence them, but also because keeping those people locked up is costing a lot of money and needlessly ruining lives. It's nice to see a failed and destructive big-government program being wound down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanders is the best of the major party candidates on cannabis prohibition

 

First ever to say he would support a state legalization effort.

 

Until last week, Sanders sounded a lot like Clinton on marijuana policy, saying he was interested to see what happens in the states where voters have approved legalization. By publicly admitting his support for legalization, he instantly became the pot-friendliest major-party presidential candidate. Even Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the most libertarian candidate in the Republican field, has declined to take a position on the merits of legalization, saying only that the federal government should not try to force pot prohibition on the states.

 

 

If Rand Paul would take a cue from Sanders and say what he actually thinks, I suspect he would say he favors legalization as well. But he doesn't say what he thinks. I guess he hasn't noticed how much support Trump and Sanders have gotten simply by saying what they think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Federal Judge Says Dept of Justice Must Obey Law

 

Breyer did not say whether his reasoning would also apply to criminal prosecutions. But he emphatically rejected the Obama administration’s argument that the congressional action allows federal agents to act against individual marijuana suppliers as long as the Justice Department doesn’t directly challenge state laws.

 

“It defies language and logic for the government to argue that it does not prevent California from implementing its medical marijuana laws by shutting down these ... heavily regulated medical marijuana dispensaries,” Breyer said.

 

 

There's a novel concept! Good for him.

 

In fairness to the DOJ, they are not the ones who should be mocked here. Congress should. Congress prohibited the spending of money to enforce the marijuana prohibition that was ordered by... Congress.

 

Conflicting signals. If Congress really doesn't want money spent on their prohibition, they should repeal it, not just defund it.

 

But if they are not going to be consistent, at least this federal judge sees that a prohibition on spending is a prohibition on spending, even when conflicting signals imply strongly that the spending is lawful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben Carson wants to intensify stupidity

 

Because if you try something stupid and notice decades later that it has not been working out as planned, the best answer is to try intensely stupid.

 

I know this guy is supposed to be smart, but I have yet to see any evidence of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's slightly smarter than our current law. He sees some benefit to medical marijuana but the Schedule 1 classification still claims there are none.

 

But being slightly smarter than our stupid cannabis laws is damning with faint praise.

 

He believes the discredited "gateway drug" theory of why ineffective prohibition laws are a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Federal Reserve Won't Allow Cannabis Bank in Colorado

There have been conflicting signals from the federal government but the Fed decided that signals are signals and the law is the law, so they decided to obey the law.

 

The law says that there is no known medical application for cannabis and it has a high potential for abuse, just like heroin and other Schedule 1 drugs.

 

The facts about medical uses do not matter. What matters is that Duopoly politicians won't change the federal law. Until they do, there's no reason the banking cartel should want to risk mingling their money with the illegal money generated by (state-legal) cannabis sales. I'd reach the same conclusion if I were on the Federal Reserve board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben Carson wants to intensify stupidity

 

Because if you try something stupid and notice decades later that it has not been working out as planned, the best answer is to try intensely stupid.

 

Bernie Sanders has come out against the war on cannabis and now it's looking like the smartest Republican on this issue is...

 

 

sigh...

 

Donald Trump

 

 

My reaction: WTF, Rand Paul? You deserve to lose to him just for being slow to realize that libertarians are right on this issue, have been for a long time, and the public is starting to realize it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why Banning Smart Drugs for College Students is Impossible, Evil

Should college students be allowed to take Adderall and Modafinil to improve their academic performance, or should universities treat these so-called “smart drugs” the same way Major League Baseball treats steroids? I attended a debate on the subject at George Washington University last night, and came away convinced that banning smart drugs is not only impractical—it’s profoundly evil.

 

 

The argument that these drugs must be banned, lest students get an education that is too good, is just plain weird.

 

Also weird is the idea that college students want to take drugs for some other reason than getting high, but maybe that's just my generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

plenty of local high schoolers taking ADD drugs so they can compete with the other kids on ADD drugs.

 

Some adults doing the same thing.

 

It's the flip side of the Silicon Valley experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest numbers I saw for Colorado had $70 million raised in pot taxes compared to $42 million in alcohol taxes in the last year.

 

The FBI stats for 2014 had someone arrested every 51 seconds for pot with just over 80% having small amounts.

 

I wonder how much money Colorado is saving by not arresting people for pot, do the police have more time to chase real criminals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Christians Against Prohibition

 

 

Last Saturday the New England Conference of United Methodist Churches, a group representing 600 congregations in six Northeastern states, voted in favor of Resolution 15-203, which uses Christian principles to call for an end to the War on Drugs.

 

The resolution begins:

 

 

 

In the love of Christ, who came to save those who are lost and vulnerable, we urge the creation of a genuinely new system for the care and restoration of victims, offenders, criminal justice officials, and the community as a whole. Restorative justice grows out of biblical authority, which emphasizes a right relationship with God, self and community. When such relationships are violated or broken through crime, opportunities are created to make things right.

 

...

 

Be it Resolved: That the New England Annual Conference supports seeking means other than prohibition to address the problem of substance abuse; and is further resolved to support the mission of the international educational organization Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) to reduce the multitude of unintended harmful consequences resulting from fighting the war on drugs and to lessen the incidence of death, disease, crime, and addiction by ending drug prohibition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Mexicans Against Prohibition

 

And they're not just any Mexicans. They're Supreme Court Justices.

 

One in particular seems to grasp the fundamental point of legalization: self-ownership and individual rights.

 

Arturo Zaldivar, the Supreme Court justice who backed the application and is considered a liberal by many, argued that Mexico’s laws against the personal use and consumption of marijuana are unconstitutional because they suppress the rights of individuals to do as they choose.

 

“The responsible decision taken to experiment with the effects of this substance — whatever personal harm it might do — belongs within the autonomy of the individual, protected by their freedom to develop themselves,” Zaldivar said.

That is markedly different from legalization strategies pursued in the United States, where marijuana advocates tend to focus on overhauling criminal laws or asserting an exception for medical use.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Federal Reserve Won't Allow Cannabis Bank in Colorado

 

There have been conflicting signals from the federal government but the Fed decided that signals are signals and the law is the law, so they decided to obey the law.

 

The law says that there is no known medical application for cannabis and it has a high potential for abuse, just like heroin and other Schedule 1 drugs.

 

The facts about medical uses do not matter. What matters is that Duopoly politicians won't change the federal law. Until they do, there's no reason the banking cartel should want to risk mingling their money with the illegal money generated by (state-legal) cannabis sales. I'd reach the same conclusion if I were on the Federal Reserve board.

 

My issue with this is that the Fedgov can't have it both ways. They can't collect taxes on the revenue sales while at the same time continuing to treat it as an illegal activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Federal Reserve Won't Allow Cannabis Bank in Colorado

 

There have been conflicting signals from the federal government but the Fed decided that signals are signals and the law is the law, so they decided to obey the law.

 

The law says that there is no known medical application for cannabis and it has a high potential for abuse, just like heroin and other Schedule 1 drugs.

 

The facts about medical uses do not matter. What matters is that Duopoly politicians won't change the federal law. Until they do, there's no reason the banking cartel should want to risk mingling their money with the illegal money generated by (state-legal) cannabis sales. I'd reach the same conclusion if I were on the Federal Reserve board.

 

My issue with this is that the Fedgov can't have it both ways. They can't collect taxes on the revenue sales while at the same time continuing to treat it as an illegal activity.

 

 

The Fed is a banking cartel and they're not so worried about collecting taxes. They know that if they mix illegal money with all their legal money, all of it becomes subject to seizure. They'd be fools to take that risk. Not being fools, they refuse. I don't blame them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Federal Reserve Won't Allow Cannabis Bank in Colorado

 

There have been conflicting signals from the federal government but the Fed decided that signals are signals and the law is the law, so they decided to obey the law.

 

The law says that there is no known medical application for cannabis and it has a high potential for abuse, just like heroin and other Schedule 1 drugs.

 

The facts about medical uses do not matter. What matters is that Duopoly politicians won't change the federal law. Until they do, there's no reason the banking cartel should want to risk mingling their money with the illegal money generated by (state-legal) cannabis sales. I'd reach the same conclusion if I were on the Federal Reserve board.

My issue with this is that the Fedgov can't have it both ways. They can't collect taxes on the revenue sales while at the same time continuing to treat it as an illegal activity.

The Fed is a banking cartel and they're not so worried about collecting taxes. They know that if they mix illegal money with all their legal money, all of it becomes subject to seizure. They'd be fools to take that risk. Not being fools, they refuse. I don't blame them.

What did that have anything to do with what I said??? I said Fedgov. Not "The Fed". Last I checked, the federal govt collects taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries. It was a response to the concept of "conflicting signals". The fed gov won't change the pot laws and still enforces them. Yet, AFAIK, they are happy to collect revenue on illegal activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohio overwhelmingly rejected cannabis legalization

 

Ohio's most prominent politicians, including Gov. John Kasich, Attorney General Mike DeWine, and Secretary of State Jon Husted, opposed Issue 3, and so did most of the state's editorial boards. But it's not clear whether the rejection of Issue 3 reflects general resistance to legalization or opposition to the initiative's most controversial feature: a cannabis cultivation cartel that would have limited commercial production to 10 sites controlled by the initiative's financial backers. The ballot description highlighted that aspect of the initiative, saying Issue 3 "grants a monopoly for the commercial production and sale of marijuana for recreational and medicinal purposes" and would "endow exclusive rights for commercial marijuana growth, cultivation, and extraction to self-designated landowners who own ten predetermined parcels of land."

 

 

I would have had a hard time voting for that crap. Incremental progress can be a viable path but there's no good reason to give these people a monopoly on growing this particular plant. I'm actually glad to see that one go down in flames.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I prefer the Mexican point of view to the police state...

 

“As a country, we are taking a first step, a step that recognizes this important human right, which is dignity and liberty,”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanders is the best of the major party candidates on cannabis prohibition

 

First ever to say he would support a state legalization effort.

 

Until last week, Sanders sounded a lot like Clinton on marijuana policy, saying he was interested to see what happens in the states where voters have approved legalization. By publicly admitting his support for legalization, he instantly became the pot-friendliest major-party presidential candidate. Even Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the most libertarian candidate in the Republican field, has declined to take a position on the merits of legalization, saying only that the federal government should not try to force pot prohibition on the states.

 

 

If Rand Paul would take a cue from Sanders and say what he actually thinks, I suspect he would say he favors legalization as well. But he doesn't say what he thinks. I guess he hasn't noticed how much support Trump and Sanders have gotten simply by saying what they think.

 

Another hat tip to Bernie Sanders, who has now introduced a bill to end the war on cannabis at the federal level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Industrial Hemp Cultivation Becomes Legal in North Carolina

The bill was passed on Sept. 29 in the North Carolina Senate by a vote of 42-2 (6 absent) and has sat on the governor’s desk since. On Saturday, Gov. McCrory allowed the bill to become law without his signature. He explained his decision in a written statement, “After discussion with Agriculture Commissioner Steve Troxler, I have decided to allow Senate Bill 313 to become law without my signature.

 

...

 

Bill 313 states in part, “The General Assembly finds and declares that it is in the best interest of the citizens of North Carolina to promote and encourage the development of an industrial hemp industry in the state in order to expand employment, promote economic activity, and provide opportunities to small farmers for an environmentally sustainable and profitable use of crop lands that might otherwise be lost to agricultural production.”

 

 

The Governor seems to be concerned that people will grow the mind-altering or medically useful variants of the plant. It would be terrible if people were suddenly able to get hold of those kinds, which prohibition has so successfully kept out of the US for so long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Head of DEA is a joke

 

He serves at the pleasure of the President, so I guess having a guy who doesn't know that marijuana has medical uses and who thinks it's more or less the same as heroin pleases the President. Of course, we could always elect someone from the other half of the Duopoly and get more or less the same shit, only worse.

 

Close to 15,000 of us have already signed the petition calling for his removal from office. Not that it would matter. Obama would just appoint another drug warrior who puts the interests of his agency above those of the people. Just like a Republican President would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Destroying valuable property instead of selling it is evidence of hoplophobia. Those dumbfucks must really hate taxpayers almost as much as they hate guns.

I think the cops destroy drugs they confiscate too.

 

 

 

 

That at least makes some sense, as the drugs are generally contraband and can not be legally sold to people.

 

Of course, drug prohibition is still stupid, but the symptoms don't quite match the symptoms of hoplophobia.

 

It's a different flavor of fear, leading to different calls for the nanny state to protect us from a different segment of the Duopoly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of us have tried cannabis. Those who have not certainly know someone who has.

 

Ask yourself or someone you know: were you still high WEEKS after using it?

 

I wasn't either.

 

And now, the Arizona Supreme Court unanimously stated that the presence of THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) in the blood does not necessarily mean that a person is impaired.


Tests can detect the metabolites for weeks or months, but that doesn't mean impairment lasts for weeks or months. It doesn't. If you don't know this personally, ask someone who does to verify what I have said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kratom Prohibition Is Stupid Too

 

 

Kerry Biggs needed help managing her chronic pain.

 

Years of taking prescription medications to alleviate the pain caused by her fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis and other ailments had left the mother of two "feeling foggy."

 

Desperate to find an alternative, Biggs tried kratom. Derived from the leaves of the kratom tree, a close relative of the coffee plant, it has been used for centuries in Southeast Asia for its medicinal properties.

In small doses, kratom acts as a minor stimulant similar to caffeine. In larger doses its works as a painkiller and can act as an antidepressant for some people.

 

"It gave me a new lease on life," said Biggs, who was able to wean herself off prescription painkillers by using kratom. "It dampened down my pain without all the side effects that come with taking prescription drugs."

 

That new lease on life came to an abrupt end last year, because Biggs lives in Wisconsin. In 2014, Wisconsin became the fourth state to ban kratom.

 

Kratom was never mentioned by state legislators either before or after the vote that made it illegal.

 

Instead, two of the chemicals in it were included on a list of synthetic opioids lawmakers classified as Schedule 1 drugs, despite the fact kratom is neither synthetic nor an opioid.

 

No one in Madison has been able to explain how or why the chemicals ended up on the list, but their inclusion means kratom is now in the same category as heroin and cocaine.

 

At a meeting of the Wisconsin Controlled Substances Board last week, board member Alan Bloom said he was surprised to see the kratom on the list of schedule substances.

 

"They stick out like a sore thumb," said Bloom, a professor of pharmacology and toxicology at the Medical College of Wisconsin.

 

Bloom was blunt in his assessment of the scheduling of kratom. "There's no scientific basis for it," he told his colleagues.

 

But state lawmakers aren't required to rely on science in their decisions. In 2012, legislators in Indiana made kratom illegal by declaring it to be a synthetic drug.

...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as addiction isn't regarded as a disability or disease I'm fine with legalization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as addiction isn't regarded as a disability or disease I'm fine with legalization.

 

How do you see alcoholism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama's Solicitor General asks court not to hear Nebraska and Oklahoma lawsuit against Colorado

 

I'd like to see the court tell those two states to take a hike but I don't know about the legal justification.

 

 

In their challenge to Colorado's law, filed in December 2014, Nebraska and Oklahoma said marijuana is being smuggled across their borders and that drugs threaten the health and safety of children.

 

Nebraska and Oklahoma noted that marijuana remains illegal under federal law and said Colorado has created "a dangerous gap" in the federal drug control system.

 

Oklahoma and Nebraska's lawsuit was filed under a rarely used Supreme Court process, known as "original jurisdiction," in which the justices hear disputes between states that have not first been handled by lower courts.

 

U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said in court papers filed on Wednesday that the case was not the type of dispute the court would normally hear.

"Entertaining the type of dispute here - essentially that one state's laws make it more likely that third parties will violate federal and state law in another state - would represent a substantial and unwarranted expansion of this court's original jurisdiction," Verrilli said.

 

 

I have to agree with Nebraska and Oklahoma that state legalization creates a gap in federal law enforcement. I think it's the enforcement of prohibition that creates the most danger, so I'd dispute that it's a "dangerous gap" but there's no denying it's a gap.

 

My conclusion: end the federal war on cannabis to make that problem go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some progress. Tacked into the spending bill was a provision to prevent the federal government from prosecuting medical marijuana patients or distributors who are in compliance with the laws of their state:

http://www.farr.house.gov/index.php/press-releases/71-newsroom/2014-press-releases/1083-farr-statement-on-rohrabacher-farr-medical-marijuana-amendment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some progress. Tacked into the spending bill was a provision to prevent the federal government from prosecuting medical marijuana patients or distributors who are in compliance with the laws of their state:

 

http://www.farr.house.gov/index.php/press-releases/71-newsroom/2014-press-releases/1083-farr-statement-on-rohrabacher-farr-medical-marijuana-amendment

 

I'm glad Congress did that again, but not sure it will be any more effective than it was last time they did it.

 

It's a bit like Obama doing piecemeal pardons of drug offenders who are serving more time than rapists and murderers. I'm glad to see it, but it's not fixing the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gardening is bad

 

Because the cops refused to say why they thought the Hartes were growing marijuana, the couple spent a year and $25,000 in legal fees to get a look at the affidavit supporting the search warrant.

 

Among other things, Lungstrum's ruling means he thought the evidence cited in that affidavit provided probable cause for the search. If so, that's only because probable cause is a much weaker standard than people generally imagine.

 

It turned out that the genesis of the search was a tip from a Missouri state trooper who saw Robert Harte leave a Kansas City hydroponics store on August 9, 2011, carrying a bag. Inside the bag were supplies for a horticultural project involving tomato, squash, and melon plants that Harte thought would be edifying for the kids. Since people often buy indoor gardening supplies for such perfectly legal purposes, that purchase itself was not enough for probable cause. But eight months later, sheriff's deputies rummaging through the Hartes' trash came across wet "plant material" that the Hartes think must have been some of the loose tea that Adlynn favors. Although a field test supposedly identified the material as marijuana, a laboratory test (conducted after the raid) showed that result was erroneous.

The Hartes argued that police should have known better than to trust field tests, which are notoriously inaccurate. Experiments by Claflin University biotechnologist Omar Bagasra found that one commonly used field test, the NIK NarcoPouch 908, misidentified many legal plant products as marijuana, including spearmint, peppermint, basil, oregano, patchouli, vanilla, cinnamon leaf, lemon grass, bergamot, lavendar, ginseng, anise, gingko, eucalyptus, rose, cloves, ginger, frankincense, vine flower, chicory flower, olive flower, cypress, and St. John's wort. Several of those are common ingredients in herbal tea. In their complaint, the Hartes say the test used to incriminate them has a false-positive rate of 70 percent. They also note that the test is not supposed to be performed on "saturated or liquid samples."

 

But according to Judge Lungstrum, the innocent act of visiting a hydroponics store, combined with the result of a test that is accurate only 30 percent of the time (even assuming it is performed correctly), adds up to probable cause for a search....

 

 

I don't think that's right. The field test was done after the search so it could not have been part of the "probable cause" for the warrant.

 

That leaves visiting the gardening store as the act that established probable cause that these people were growing the dreaded killer (that has never killed anyone), marijuana.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Some progress. Tacked into the spending bill was a provision to prevent the federal government from prosecuting medical marijuana patients or distributors who are in compliance with the laws of their state:

 

http://www.farr.house.gov/index.php/press-releases/71-newsroom/2014-press-releases/1083-farr-statement-on-rohrabacher-farr-medical-marijuana-amendment

 

I'm glad Congress did that again, but not sure it will be any more effective than it was last time they did it.

 

It's a bit like Obama doing piecemeal pardons of drug offenders who are serving more time than rapists and murderers. I'm glad to see it, but it's not fixing the problem.

 

 

More on why renewing that Rohrabacher-Farr rider is at best very limited good news.

.

It depends on what the meaning of implement is. One meaning is "tool." I think the DOJ are being obtuse implements

 

...

One reason the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment did not work as advertised is that the Justice Department refuses to interpret it the way Rohrabacher and Farr do. It is clear from the debate that preceded the House vote on the amendment in May 2014 that supporters and opponents of the rider both thought it would bar prosecution of people who grow, possess, or distribute medical marijuana in compliance with state law. But as I predicted last year, the Justice Department argues that prosecuting medical marijuana suppliers or seizing their property does not “prevent” states from “implementing” their laws.

 

...

 

Assuming the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment does ultimately affect enforcement of the federal ban on marijuana in states that allow medical use, that is not the same as eliminating the ban. The rider has no impact in the 27 states that do not have medical marijuana laws, and it applies only to the Justice Department, so it has no effect on actions by the IRS or the Treasury Department that make it difficult for medical marijuana suppliers to pay their taxes and obtain banking services.

 

More fundamentally, the amendment, which has to be renewed every fiscal year, does not change the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which continues to classify marijuana as a Schedule I substance with no legal uses. Because marijuana is still prohibited by federal law, people who grow and sell it, no matter the purpose and regardless of their status under state law, commit multiple felonies every day. If no one is trying to put them in prison right now, that is only thanks to prosecutorial forbearance that may prove temporary.

 

Anyone who provides services to marijuana businesses is implicated in their lawbreaking. This week a Colorado credit union that wants to specialize in serving state-licensed marijuana businesses tried to persuade a federal judge that it is legally entitled to participate in the Federal Reserve’s payment system, without which it cannot operate. The judge did not seem inclined to agree, saying, “I would be forcing the reserve bank to give a master account to a credit union that serves illegal businesses.” This month the U.S. Postal Service announced that periodicals containing marijuana ads are “nonmailable,” citing a CSA provision that makes it a felony to place ads promoting the purchase of illegal drugs. An accounting firm and a bonding company hired by a Colorado marijuana merchant recently paid $70,000 to settle a federal racketeering suit filed against them by a hotel whose owners were upset about plans to open a pot shop near their business.

 

Problems like these cannot be solved without changing marijuana’s status under federal law. The Rohrbacher-Farr amendment does not do that, no matter how many hopeful headlines it generates.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Corrupt Drug Testing Racket In Florida

 

Florida’s top law enforcement officials knew by 2012 that Millennium Laboratories, the nation’s largest drug testing company, was defrauding Florida Medicaid of millions.

 

But that did not stop Attorney General Pam Bondi from urging Medicare to pay for high-priced and unnecessary drug screening tests at the heart of Millennium’s massive scam, even as her own office and federal prosecutors pursued civil charges against the company.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prohibition Is Going To Work This TIme!

 

All across America last weekend, panicked drug users rushed to their dealers to stock up on marijuana, heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine for fear of running out. The arrest of Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, head of the biggest drug cartel in Mexico, was sure to cause a sudden shortage of illegal substances in this country.

 

 

Or not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Americans Love Cannabis Taxes

 

Possibly because most Americans will not be paying those taxes.

 

The reality turns out to be: they don't raise all that much money and where the taxes are high, the main goal of displacing the illegal market is inhibited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Folly of Prohibition

 

...

While Penn suggests that the war on drugs represents a triumph of theory over practice, the truth is that the results of this crusade were perfectly predictable from basic economic principles. It would be more accurate to say that the war on drugs represents a triumph of emotion, prejudice, and inertia over both theory and practical experience.

 

...

 

 

That sounds more than a little like the Rise of The Donald.

 

As for General Kelly's complaint that he could not interdict enough smugglers because there was not enough money, there can never be enough...

 

...

Kelly apparently thinks interdiction reduces the total amount of drugs reaching the United States. But that is not how interdiction works, to the extent that it works at all. Given all the places where drugs can be produced and all the ways they can be transported to people who want them, the most that drug warriors can hope to accomplish is to impose costs on traffickers that are high enough to raise retail prices, thereby discouraging consumption.

 

How has that been going? “With few exceptions and despite increasing investments in enforcement-based supply reduction efforts aimed at disrupting global drug supply,” a 2013 study published by BMJ Open concluded, “illegal drug prices have generally decreased while drug purity has generally increased since 1990. These findings suggest that expanding efforts at controlling the global illegal drug market through law enforcement are failing.”

...

 

 

The drug market interprets prohibition as damage and finds a way to route around it. Markets will always beat regulators at that game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This girl used to measure her time between seizures in hours, back when she was using legal pharmaceuticals to try to control them.

 

Now she's using illegal cannabis oil.

 

12605525_936750439743066_228097945496049

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hat tip to Georgia Rep Allen Peake for breaking the stupid law.

 

...Rep. Allen Peake, a Georgia lawmaker, admitted that he defies unjust cannabis prohibition by bringing medical cannabis into Georgia from states where it is legal, such as Colorado. He recently delivered medical cannabis to a mother whose son suffers from seizures....

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Medical Marijuana Amendment Makes FL Ballot



Allows medical use of marijuana for individuals with debilitating medical conditions as determined by a licensed Florida physician. Allows caregivers to assist patients’ medical use of marijuana. The Department of Health shall register and regulate centers that produce and distribute marijuana for medical purposes and shall issue identification cards to patients and caregivers. Applies only to Florida law. Does not immunize violations of federal law or any non-medical use, possession or production of marijuana.


I'd prefer to see the legislature do this rather than use our constitutional amendment process to get it done, but will vote for this (or possibly one of the other) amendments on this issue.

This is, in my view, the worst one, but it does have the advantage of being backed by the deeeeeep pockets of attorney John Morgan.

In other news, Maine's Governor is a nutcase. Thinks mandatory minimum sentences are going to start winning the drug war any year now and thinks we'd do even better at making prohibition a success if we brought in the guillotine.

And just like gun control or any other prohibition, it's really more about Us vs Them than the thing being prohibited so there are some disturbing overtones...


“The traffickers, these aren’t people who take drugs. These are guys by the name D-Money, Smoothie, Shifty,” LePage, a Republican, said during a discussion of the state’s heroin epidemic at a town hall event. “These type of guys that come from Connecticut and New York. They come up here, they sell their heroin, then they go back home.”

“Incidentally, half the time they impregnate a young, white girl before they leave,” he added. “Which is the real sad thing, because then we have another issue that we have to deal with down the road.”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Christians Against Prohibition

 

 

Last Saturday the New England Conference of United Methodist Churches, a group representing 600 congregations in six Northeastern states, voted in favor of Resolution 15-203, which uses Christian principles to call for an end to the War on Drugs.

 

The resolution begins:

 

 

 

In the love of Christ, who came to save those who are lost and vulnerable, we urge the creation of a genuinely new system for the care and restoration of victims, offenders, criminal justice officials, and the community as a whole. Restorative justice grows out of biblical authority, which emphasizes a right relationship with God, self and community. When such relationships are violated or broken through crime, opportunities are created to make things right.

 

...

 

Be it Resolved: That the New England Annual Conference supports seeking means other than prohibition to address the problem of substance abuse; and is further resolved to support the mission of the international educational organization Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) to reduce the multitude of unintended harmful consequences resulting from fighting the war on drugs and to lessen the incidence of death, disease, crime, and addiction by ending drug prohibition.

 

 

Wow! Some good Christians in Texas too!

 

Last I heard, TX had the death penalty for hash oil. This is quite a change of heart. Hope it continues.

 

The proposal would make Texas the fifth state in the United States to fully legalize recreational marijuana use. In a surprising, and “unprecedented” bipartisan move, the proposal was approved in a House panel vote.

 

...

 

Republican David Simpson of Longview explained in an op-ed piece that it was his belief in God, and his distrust of government, as well as criticism of the “War on Drugs” which led him to sponsor the marijuana legalization bill.

 

“As a Christian, I recognize the innate goodness of everything God made and humanity’s charge to be stewards of the same,” Simpson explained. “I don’t believe that when God made marijuana he made a mistake that government needs to fix.”

 

...

 

According to the local Houston Chronicle, the panel’s three Democrats joined two Republicans giving House Bill 2165 a “decisive 5-2 victory.”

 

This vote came only days after a 4-2 vote to decriminalize marijuana. This marked the first proposal to decriminalize that has made it out of a Texas legislative committee to date.

 

 

I'm a little surprised that TX Democrats would vote for this. It is, after all, Texas. What's shocking is the two Republican votes. That's two more than I thought I'd live to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ted Cruz Flip Flops On Mandatory Minimum Sentences

 

A year ago, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley condemned a sentencing reform bill backed by Ted Cruz as "lenient" and "dangerous." Eight months later, it was Cruz's turn. Explaining his opposition to a sentencing reform bill backed by Grassley, Cruz described it as dangerously lenient.

 

 

Not long ago, Cruz understood why drug warriors like Grassley are wrong on this issue:

 

"Although there is nothing wrong in principle with mandatory minimums, they must be carefully calibrated to ensure that no circumstances could justify a lesser sentence for the crime charged," Cruz wrote in his contribution to a collection of essays published by the Brennan Center for Justice last April. "The current draconian mandatory minimum sentences sometimes result in sentencing outcomes that neither fit the crime nor the perpetrator's unique circumstances. This is especially true for nonviolent drug offenders. Harsh mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug crimes have contributed to prison overpopulation and are both unfair and ineffective relative to the public expense and human costs of years-long incarceration."

 

 

You can't win the R nomination if you go around talking about nonviolent drug offenders and their nonviolent drug crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom you really need to see someone about this talking to yourself thing. But until then carry on. You have the floor...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Facebook takes the federal government's side in the war on weed, taking down medical cannabis dispensary pages for promoting illegal drugs.

 

Illegal under federal law, but not state and local laws, that is.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-is-purging-medical-marijuana-pages-2016-2

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2016/0204/Why-Facebook-deleted-New-Jersey-s-medical-marijuana-pages

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the drug war is that it is not "winnable." It is a prime example of society's failure to understand how the market works. There is a market for drugs in the US. Take out a drug dealer, and that market still exists. So, the market causes that void to be filled by another drug dealer. The harder the government fights, the more profitable drug dealers become.

 

The only way to "win" the war on drugs would be a very severe punishment system such as a swift death penalty for possession. But the people would not tolerate such a thing. So it is unwinnable. Given that it is not winnable, we need to try something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ted Cruz Flip Flops On Mandatory Minimum Sentences

 

A year ago, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley condemned a sentencing reform bill backed by Ted Cruz as "lenient" and "dangerous." Eight months later, it was Cruz's turn. Explaining his opposition to a sentencing reform bill backed by Grassley, Cruz described it as dangerously lenient.

 

 

Not long ago, Cruz understood why drug warriors like Grassley are wrong on this issue:

 

"Although there is nothing wrong in principle with mandatory minimums, they must be carefully calibrated to ensure that no circumstances could justify a lesser sentence for the crime charged," Cruz wrote in his contribution to a collection of essays published by the Brennan Center for Justice last April. "The current draconian mandatory minimum sentences sometimes result in sentencing outcomes that neither fit the crime nor the perpetrator's unique circumstances. This is especially true for nonviolent drug offenders. Harsh mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug crimes have contributed to prison overpopulation and are both unfair and ineffective relative to the public expense and human costs of years-long incarceration."

 

 

You can't win the R nomination if you go around talking about nonviolent drug offenders and their nonviolent drug crimes.

 

Senate watering down sentencing reform bill

 

One change involves Section 105 of the bill, which reduced enhanced mandatory minimum sentences for so-called “armed career criminals.”

 

Under the original proposal, certain felons who already had three violent felony or serious drug offense convictions, and were found guilty of possessing a firearm would face a 10-year enhanced mandatory minimum — lowered from the current 15-year minimum sentence.

But the bill’s authors are planning to get rid of this section altogether so that the higher, 15-year sentence remains intact, a senior GOP aide said Monday. The aide added that this section was the subject of the most complaints from conservatives.

 

People legally engaged in various forms of cannabis commerce in some states are committing "serious drug offenses" under federal law. And if they have a gun, they're "armed career criminals."

 

Treating these people the same as people who have committed violent crimes makes no sense to me, but that's what the Duopoly is up there doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the drug war is that it is not "winnable." It is a prime example of society's failure to understand how the market works. There is a market for drugs in the US. Take out a drug dealer, and that market still exists. So, the market causes that void to be filled by another drug dealer. The harder the government fights, the more profitable drug dealers become.

 

The only way to "win" the war on drugs would be a very severe punishment system such as a swift death penalty for possession. But the people would not tolerate such a thing. So it is unwinnable. Given that it is not winnable, we need to try something else.

 

The states that have tried something else are (very slowly) learning that high tax rates and burdensome regulations result in black markets. The good news is that they are grudgingly reacting to this surprising discovery in positive ways.

 

The bad news is that the discovery is surprising to anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom you really need to see someone about this talking to yourself thing. But until then carry on. You have the floor...

 

Shhhh..... didn't you get the memo? This is one of Tom's Constitutional blogs. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tom you really need to see someone about this talking to yourself thing. But until then carry on. You have the floor...

 

Shhhh..... didn't you get the memo? This is one of Tom's Constitutional blogs. ;)

 

 

I know most others are not interested but my view is that our drug war plays a major role in fomenting violence in our cities, it is responsible for such lovely policies as no-knock searches, civil asset forfeiture abuse, and mandatory minimum sentencing, and it corrupts our foreign policy with things like the DEA laundering cartel money and the ATF helping to arm cartels.

 

Why those issues are unimportant to non-libertarians mystifies me but I'll continue to post about them.

 

Coming to this thread, knowing what you'll find, and commenting on how it's only important to me is curious behavior. Why not just ignore me like everyone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not ignoring you and I do think these are important topics. I agree with pretty much all of that. I think the lack of responses generally means that most folks agree with you. Its just not as interesting to agree with someone here. You might get the occasional +1 sort of thing. But this place thrives on contention. Your subject is generally not contentious, so it doesn't generate the buzz or traffic some of the other topics do.

 

Just saying'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not ignoring you and I do think these are important topics. I agree with pretty much all of that. I think the lack of responses generally means that most folks agree with you. Its just not as interesting to agree with someone here. You might get the occasional +1 sort of thing. But this place thrives on contention. Your subject is generally not contentious, so it doesn't generate the buzz or traffic some of the other topics do.

 

Just saying'

 

Of course it's contentious. We're about to vote in another drug warrior to replace our current drug warrior in chief.

 

If people agreed with me, more of them would mention Gary Johnson. But virtually everyone here is getting ready to vote for more of the same. How can it be that they disagree with more of the same when they quietly vote for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are exactly two legal users of cannabis in America.

 

There were 13 when Saint Ronald shut down the research program that allowed them access. The rest have since died.

 

One of them speaks out.

 

10 federally-supplied joints a day for over three decades and he's doing pretty well, wants the same freedom for others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Behind? Looks to me like Austrailia is at least discussing rescheduling cannabis next month. That's way ahead of us in my book.

 

Health Minister Sussan Ley said the Therapeutic Goods Administration had undertaken public consultation on down-scheduling medicinal cannabis with an interim decision due in March.

 

"This will simplify arrangements around the legal possession of medicinal cannabis products, placing them in the same category as restricted medicines such as morphine, rather than an illicit drug."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you get a PM from Tom ray, don't open it.

 

The notion that only pot smokers see the stupidity of prohibition pretty much only comes from anonymous Aussies.

 

I used to get this from Americans too but most now seem to know about medical users like the kids with seizures and my father so they understand that only assholes go around calling people who want to end prohibition criminals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drug War Fails In Afghanistan

 

Sopko said Afghan farmers were producing more opium "now then they did during the Taliban years." In fact, the U.S. spent $43 million in 2001 in support of the Taliban's poppy eradication efforts, just six months before 9/11 and seven months before the start of the U.S. war in Afghanistan that toppled the theocratic regime. "It has been a successful export for the last 15 years that we have been there," Sopko said.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drug War Fails In Afghanistan

 

Sopko said Afghan farmers were producing more opium "now then they did during the Taliban years." In fact, the U.S. spent $43 million in 2001 in support of the Taliban's poppy eradication efforts, just six months before 9/11 and seven months before the start of the U.S. war in Afghanistan that toppled the theocratic regime. "It has been a successful export for the last 15 years that we have been there," Sopko said.

 

 

 

That's nonsense, the USG is doing everything in their power to stop the drug scurge.. And besides Killery will put a stop to it! :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama's Solicitor General asks court not to hear Nebraska and Oklahoma lawsuit against Colorado

 

I'd like to see the court tell those two states to take a hike but I don't know about the legal justification.

 

 

In their challenge to Colorado's law, filed in December 2014, Nebraska and Oklahoma said marijuana is being smuggled across their borders and that drugs threaten the health and safety of children.

 

Nebraska and Oklahoma noted that marijuana remains illegal under federal law and said Colorado has created "a dangerous gap" in the federal drug control system.

 

Oklahoma and Nebraska's lawsuit was filed under a rarely used Supreme Court process, known as "original jurisdiction," in which the justices hear disputes between states that have not first been handled by lower courts.

 

U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said in court papers filed on Wednesday that the case was not the type of dispute the court would normally hear.

"Entertaining the type of dispute here - essentially that one state's laws make it more likely that third parties will violate federal and state law in another state - would represent a substantial and unwarranted expansion of this court's original jurisdiction," Verrilli said.

 

 

I have to agree with Nebraska and Oklahoma that state legalization creates a gap in federal law enforcement. I think it's the enforcement of prohibition that creates the most danger, so I'd dispute that it's a "dangerous gap" but there's no denying it's a gap.

 

My conclusion: end the federal war on cannabis to make that problem go away.

 

SCOTUS told Nebraska and Oklahoma to HTFU

 

...Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Samuel Alito, dissented from the Court's decision not to hear the lawsuit. "The complaint, on its face, presents a 'controvers[y] between two or more States' that this Court alone has authority to adjudicate," he writes. "The plaintiff States have alleged significant harms to their sovereign interests caused by another State. Whatever the merit of the plaintiff States' claims, we should let this complaint proceed further rather than denying leave without so much as a word of explanation."

 

 

The effect on other states was the main rationale used in Gonzalez vs Raich so it is a bit curious that the court decided to just ignore it this time around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erlichman Says Nixon's Drug War Targeted Political Enemies

 

“You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

 

 

Of course, Nixon didn't invent lying and dividing people just to get more power for government. He was following in Anslinger's footsteps...

 

 

...

History repeats itself to this day.

 

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."- Harry Anslinger, first Drug Czar.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This girl used to measure her time between seizures in hours, back when she was using legal pharmaceuticals to try to control them.

 

Now she's using illegal cannabis oil.

 

12605525_936750439743066_228097945496049

 

One year and counting as of March 19th.

 

But only a pothead would think that a year without seizures is better than hours, right Life Buoy?

 

From the Team Alexis FB page:

 

Alexis Bortell, a young Texan forced to flee the state in order to receive effective treatment for her seizure disorder celebrated one full year without a single seizure yesterday. Alexis’s parents sought refuge in Colorado where physicians were able to successfully treat her seizures with cannabis oil.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The standard Duopoly line from the 70's and 80's was that drug users just need to be locked up.

 

That has given way to the new mantra that drug users just need treatment.

 

This guy says that's not true and that drug users for the most part just need harm reduction education.

 

We've all been fed a diet of panic-inducing misinformation about what drugs actually do to our brains, he says.

 

Most of us were taught that drugs like cocaine are so addictive that a rat in a laboratory experiment will continue to press a lever to receive the substance—to the exclusion of all its other physical needs—until it actually dies. Hart said at first even he believed that finding to be true. But it turns out, those studies weren't what they were cracked up to be.

 

 

I still think most just need to be left alone by government. That's how we treat most alcohol users and should be how we treat users of other drugs unless/until their entertainment harms others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The standard Duopoly line from the 70's and 80's was that drug users just need to be locked up.

 

That has given way to the new mantra that drug users just need treatment.

 

This guy says that's not true and that drug users for the most part just need harm reduction education.

 

We've all been fed a diet of panic-inducing misinformation about what drugs actually do to our brains, he says.

 

Most of us were taught that drugs like cocaine are so addictive that a rat in a laboratory experiment will continue to press a lever to receive the substance—to the exclusion of all its other physical needs—until it actually dies. Hart said at first even he believed that finding to be true. But it turns out, those studies weren't what they were cracked up to be.

 

 

I still think most just need to be left alone by government. That's how we treat most alcohol users and should be how we treat users of other drugs unless/until their entertainment harms others.

 

I agree with this. There are plenty of functional users of illicit drugs, especially of pot, just as there are plenty of people who have a few drinks without it destroying their lives. We should focus on whether people are functional or become a danger, not on what substances they are using or not using. When people are not able to function in society, and become a menace and dangerous, then we should compel treatment. What we do now is the worst of all worlds. We continually let out dangerous addicts in the pursuit of the great white whale of drug dealing, it is a game not a concerted effort to protect and improve society. And a very expensive game at that, both in terms of blood and treasure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blood, treasure, and liberty. Civil asset forfeiture abuse, no-knock raids, RICO, and various types of snooping and surveillance have all been justified using the drug war before the war on terror became the bogeyman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meet The Conservative Tea Party Republican Who Legalized Pot Cultivation to Save His Town From Bankruptcy



...along came Johnny “Bug” Woodard and his big idea: Save Adelanto by legalizing marijuana. Woodard, a self-described gun-toting Tea Party Republican, decided to run for city council on the promise of turning around the town's finances by allowing the mass cultivation of cannabis within city limits.

"I had already picked out some property in Arizona to move my family to Arizona, because I really didn't think I'd be elected," says Woodard. "I mentioned the 'M-word.' Mention the 'M-word': political suicide."

But something surprising happened: Woodard won his race, defeating an incumbent and entering the office with a mandate. Adelanto's voters had booted out most of the previous city council and the mayor after they had tried to patch the budget with a utility tax hike, a wildly unpopular move in a city with an unemployment rate above 10 percent. Woodard's outside-the-box proposal seemed to make sense for a desert town with lots of cheap land and giant warehouses that hold everything from windmill turbines to predator drones.

...

slowly but surely, everyone came around and supported Woodard’s plan. The ordinance passed with a 4-1 vote, positioning Adelanto as the first Southern California city to legalize marijuana cultivation on a mass scale. And already, investors are flocking to buy up the land, generating a large spike in real estate prices.


I doubt I'll live to see a libertarian President but I remember when he was right that "the M word" was political suicide. Now it's not.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one seems like it could be an April Fools joke but it's dated 3/26

 

Oregon to pay reparations to marijuana convicts

 

Carol Shapiro is the newly appointed coordinator for the Oregon Department of Marijuana Reparations, and he elaborated on how this system will work to get those effected by previous laws, back on their feet. “These were essentially incidents that should have never have been tried as crimes to begin with. Thousands of people have payed dearly over the years for laws which have criminalized a substance that is basically less dangerous than any over-the-counter painkiller.”

 



“Individuals who was served prison time for drug offenses involving marijuana within the last 10 years will automatically be eligible for a refund of any fines and fees incurred as a result of those convictions, as well as compensation for pain and suffering endured from being incarcerated. These parties will also have their records automatically expunged. We are hoping that these actions will correct the injustices previously inflicted upon innocent citizens, and help them to go on with their lives.”

 

 

Refunding fines and fees and expunging records seem reasonable, but "compensation for pain and suffering endured from being incarcerated" could get out of hand.

 

Obama is also seeking to reduce the excesses of the drug war. The people at Bearing Arms are upset about it. I'm not.

 

Obama Commutes Sentences of 12 Gun Offenders

 

They are drug offenders and their gun offense in almost every case seems to have been possession. A couple of them were sentenced to life in prison, others 20 and 30 years, but those sentences haven't made the drug war a success.

 

...Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby wrote in a letter to U.S. Attorney Gen. Loretta Lynch.

 

“While I feel these actions do more to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens while having little direct impact on reducing violence, I have supported federal proposals to improve the enforcement and implementation of existing firearms laws. However, enforcing existing firearms laws seems like an uphill battle when this Administration has made a point of commuting the sentences of criminals with firearm convictions.”

 

Well that makes too much sense, what does the Commander in Chief say about that?

 

“They’re Americans who’d been serving time on the kind of outdated sentences that are clogging up our jails and burning through our tax dollars,” Obama wrote on Facebook before meeting inmates on Wednesday. “Simply put, their punishments didn’t fit the crime.”

 

 

 

Obama is right. Some of them have been locked up since the 90's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tax code is always good for a chuckle.

'

 

Apparently, marijuana that a business buys is considered "goods" for tax purposes, so the cost of those goods is tax-deductible. Expenses related to selling it are not. And for the cherry on top, the judge who wrote that decision is in trouble over...drumroll... tax evasion.

 

Citing a 2007 U.S. Tax Court decision that let Californians Helping to Alleviate Medical Problems (CHAMP) deduct expenses related to "counseling and other caregiving services" even though the organization also distributed marijuana, Martin Olive, the owner of another San Francisco dispensary, the Vapor Room Herbal Center, argued that the bulk of his expenses likewise were unrelated to "trafficking in controlled substances." Kroupa rejected that claim, saying Olive essentially was engaged in the business of selling pot, even if those sales were accompanied by "incidental" services such as advice and yoga classes.

At the same time, Kroupa said Olive should be allowed to subtract his full "cost of goods sold" (COGS), which consisted mainly of his marijuana purchases, from his gross revenue, because COGS, which "is subtracted from gross receipts in determining a taxpayer's gross income," does not qualify as a "deduction" under Section 280E. Kroupa's ruling was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in 2015.

 

The upshot of the distinction between COGS and business expenses is rather counterintuitive. A marijuana merchant cannot deduct ordinary business expenses such as rent and wages unless he can persuasively attribute them to activities other than selling marijuana. But he can deduct the cost of the marijuana he sells—either the price he paid for it or the expenses he incurred in growing and processing it. While a can of coffee in the break room may not be deductible, a jar of Purple Urkle buds in the sales area is....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie Almost Asks An Interesting Question

He was saying he opposes high taxes on sodas because they're regressive, falling most heavily on the poor.

Here's the exchange, which came after Sanders explained his opposition to a proposed soda tax:

CHUCK TODD: So you must be against cigarette taxes, too, then?

BERNIE SANDERS: No, I'm not. Cigarette taxes are— There's a difference between cigarettes and soda....

CHUCK TODD: I don't think Michael Bloomberg would agree with you on that one.

BERNIE SANDERS: Well, that's fine. He can have his point of view. But cigarettes are causing cancer, obviously, and a dozen other diseases. And there is almost the question as to why it remains a legal product in this country.

 

 

But it does remain legal and he doesn't quite want to ask the question. That being the case, there's no difference between taxes on sodas, cigarettes, or tools. All fall most heavily on the poor.

 

I guess that's only bad sometimes. It's OK to protect the poor from self-murderizing themselves with smokes or tools, but not sugary drinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Disposable Life of a 20 Year Old Confidential Informant

 

...arrested in 2013 after selling $80 worth of marijuana to a confidential informant, then threatened with 40 years in prison unless he agreed to become a confidential informant.

Video footage of Sadek's interrogation shows Weber encouraging the college student to make more "contacts" in the drug trade. Sadek, who had no lawyer representing him, was also ordered to keep his status as a C.I. a secret, including from his parents.

 

It wasn't until Andrew's body was found on the Minnesota side of the Red River that his parents learned he had been working as a C.I.

 

 

The police seem to think he killed himself but the parents want his death investigated as a potential murder. Either way, I'd say his death was caused by our stupid drug war.

 

The young man did have a bullet hole in his head, so it's possible that tools, not the drug war, caused his death. Matter of perspective, I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BATH SALTS PANIC!!!

 

No one knows why Rudy Eugene, a 31-year-old car wash employee, suddenly launched himself at Ronald Poppo, a 65-year-old homeless man he encountered on Miami's McArthur Causeway, chewing off most of his victim's face in an 18-minute assault that ended only after a police officer shot him dead. But one thing is certain: "Bath salts" did not make him do it.

 

We know that because toxicological tests found no trace of synthetic cathinones, the stimulants known as bath salts, in Eugene's body. But the results of those tests were not announced until a month after the attack, which happened on a Saturday afternoon in May 2012. In the meantime, news outlets around the world, based on zero evidence aside from one police officer's speculation, attributed Eugene's savage violence to a drug he had not taken, using security camera footage of the "Causeway Cannibal" (a.k.a. the "Miami Zombie") to illustrate the horrors wrought by a nonexistent "epidemic."

 

Reviewing that bizarre episode in a recent issue of the journal Contemporary Drug Problems, two researchers at the University of Minnesota, neuroscientist Natashia Swalve and media scholar Ruth DeFoster, draw some lessons that could help journalists avoid such drug panics in the future. That's assuming journalists want to avoid drug panics. Their track record before, during and after the Great Bath Salt Freakout of 2012 suggests otherwise.

Swalve and DeFoster searched the Nexis database for coverage of Eugene's assault by CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS and NPR. They found 31 stories: 24 from CNN, three from ABC, two from NBC and one each from NPR and MSNBC. The stories typically linked bath salts to aggression, unusual strength and hallucinations, and most referred to a recent increase in use of the stimulants; eight stories used the term epidemic. The reports featured "direct appeals (often by news anchors themselves)" for legislators to do something about the bath salt menace. "In an ostensibly impartial, fact-based medium," Swalve and DeFoster note, "it is relatively uncommon for journalists to appeal directly to legislators."

...

The same hyperbolic tendencies that Swalve and DeFoster saw in stories about the Causeway Cannibal can be seen in prior coverage of drugs such as marijuana, LSD, PCP, crack cocaine, methamphetamine and salvia, not to mention subsequent coverage of drugs such as Krokodil, Captagon and flakka (another name for alpha-PVP, one of the stimulants used in bath salts). All of those panics have been accompanied or followed by critiques like Swalve and DeFoster's, pointing out the gap between the horror story and the reality. How many times must leading news outlets fail to live up to their supposedly "high ethical standards" before we conclude that those are just as mythical as tales of drug-induced cannibalism?

 

 

Turns out pretty much every pre$$ corporation has a mythical front page when it comes to drug war panic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh great, now 3D printers are going to take political fire from both halves of the Duopoly. The Demopublicans are unhappy because people might print tools.

 

Now the Puritan Republicrats can be unhappy because people might print drugs.

 

"Today's primitive psychedelics and artificial mood-boosters may be just the beginning," fretted The Week's Chris Gayomali, referring to the ability to craft recreational drugs on demand at the point of use.

 

But it was all so very speculative... So far off in the future.

 

Except, it wasn't. And now the concern is that regulators might find the challenges of 3D medicine so daunting that they try to choke it off—and, ironically, leave illegal use as the only implementation.

 

The first commercially 3D-printed drug, the epilepsy medication SPRITAM, went on sale in March of this year. SPRITAM doesn't fulfill Cronin's promise of custom medications printed by patients—3D production in this case is used to create a rapidly disintegrating, easily swallowed pill—but it's a demonstration of the medical use of the technology earlier than most people expected to see anything of the sort.

 

 

Recreational drugs that do not exist until moments before they are used would present a serious problem when it comes to enforcement of laws against possession. If the response from drug warriors is to try to choke off 3D drug development then we will only see the illegal kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MassRoots Rejected By NASDAQ

 

MassRoots, Inc. (OTCQB: MSRT), one of the largest and fastest growing technology platforms for the cannabis industry, received notification on Monday, May 23, 2016, that the Nasdaq has denied MassRoots’ application for listing, which was filed in August 2015. The Nasdaq determined that as MassRoots may be deemed as “aiding and abetting” the distribution of an illegal substance under Federal law, they are unwilling to proceed with MassRoots’ listing application. MassRoots plans to appeal the staff decision to the Nasdaq Listing and Qualifications Board.

 

 

That seems a reasonable objection, except...

 

...the Nasdaq has already listed at least 3 biotechnology companies that extract compounds from the cannabis plant for scientific research – actually touching the plant as part of their business model...

 

 

You can't touch the plant without "aiding and abetting" the violation of federal law. It got distributed to you somehow and unless you're one of a couple of surviving people grandfathered in when Saint Ronald ended legal research years ago, it was distributed illegally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama in Vietnam

 

Another asked whether Internet posts about Obama's alleged marijuana smoking as a youth were true.

"I don't know if that's true," Obama quickly remarked, further dousing the issue with a warning: "Don't believe everything you read on the Internet."

 

He doesn't know?

Obama in 2006

Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat who said Sunday that he was considering running for president in 2008, has created a little sunlight between himself and both Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

For one thing, he said, "When I was a kid, I inhaled."

 

"That was the point," Obama told an audience of magazine editors...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and more repubs jumping on the smoke train - which is a good thing....

 

 

 

Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher made waves this week by admitting he used an ointment infused with marijuana on a surfing-related shoulder injury. “Now, don’t tell anybody I broke the law. They’ll bust down my door and, you know, and take whatever’s inside and it for evidence against me,” Rep. Rohrabacher quipped at a meeting in Washington DC. But the topical pot preparation worked.

“It’s the first time … in a year-and-a-half that I’ve had a decent night’s sleep,” Rohrabacher said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This girl used to measure her time between seizures in hours, back when she was using legal pharmaceuticals to try to control them.

 

Now she's using illegal cannabis oil.

 

12605525_936750439743066_228097945496049

 

One year and counting as of March 19th.

 

But only a pothead would think that a year without seizures is better than hours, right Life Buoy?

 

From the Team Alexis FB page:

 

Alexis Bortell, a young Texan forced to flee the state in order to receive effective treatment for her seizure disorder celebrated one full year without a single seizure yesterday. Alexis’s parents sought refuge in Colorado where physicians were able to successfully treat her seizures with cannabis oil.

 

 

 

From her FB page, Alexis fell while playing soccer and suffered a concussion.

 

So two days ago at school Alexis was playing soccer and fell banging her head on the turf. Her school has turf like the nice NFL fields. At the time, she only complained of a little neck pain. Fast forward to this morning and she said she was a little dizzy. Now for Lex that is sometimes a sign of an aura which we treat with THC. Today it seemed a bit different so Liza took her to the doctor and they discovered she has a pretty bad concussion :(. The miracle here is NO SEIZURES!

 

...

 

435 consecutive days seizure free for those counting :)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

She used to go hours without seizures. 435 days.

 

But no, there's no known medical use for cannabis according to our federal government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and more repubs jumping on the smoke train - which is a good thing....

 

http://blog.sfgate.com/smellthetruth/2016/05/27/gop-congressman-admits-medical-pot-use-says-its-working/

 

Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher made waves this week by admitting he used an ointment infused with marijuana on a surfing-related shoulder injury. “Now, don’t tell anybody I broke the law. They’ll bust down my door and, you know, and take whatever’s inside and it for evidence against me,” Rep. Rohrabacher quipped at a meeting in Washington DC. But the topical pot preparation worked.

“It’s the first time … in a year-and-a-half that I’ve had a decent night’s sleep,” Rohrabacher said.

 

He probably broke more than one law. They might just bust down his door, take whatever's inside and keep it.

 

Is blog.sfgate.com a pre$$ entity of some kind?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teenagers Confound Prohibitionists By Smoking Pot Less

 

John Walters, George W. Bush's drug czar, likewise cited the purported threat to teenagers when he urged voters to reject medical marijuana initiatives. Gil Kerlikowske, President Obama's first drug czar, took up the same theme. "We have been telling young people, particularly for the past couple years, that marijuana is medicine," he complained in 2010. "So it shouldn't be a great surprise to us that young people are now misperceiving the dangers or the risks around marijuana."

Three years later, Kerlikowske sounded the alarm again. "Young people are getting the wrong message from the medical marijuana and legalization campaigns," he told USA Today. "If it's continued to be talked about as a benign substance that has no ill effects, we're doing a great disservice to young people by giving them that message."

 

Kerlikowske was troubled by the rising percentage of teenagers who rejected the idea that people who smoke pot run a "great risk" of harming themselves. Since people who smoke pot do not actually run a great risk of harming themselves, he was in effect bemoaning the fact that adolescents' perceptions of marijuana had become more accurate. The less harmful teenagers believed pot to be, Kerlikowske worried, the more likely they would be to use and abuse it. The Kerlikowske Conjecture sounds plausible, but it has proven to be off the mark.

 

 

Drug Czars under Obama and Bush agree that telling the truth about the relative safety of cannabis compared to other drugs might mean that kids start to believe the truth. The horror.

 

The Duopoly supports lying about cannabis when the truth seems scary, openly calls their henchmen "Czars" as if that's appropriate in America, and won't change the federal policy that says cannabis has no known medical use and the same potential for abuse as heroin. But libertarians are the crazy ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope to see some jury nullification here in FL soon

 

Fifty-four-year-old Bridget Kirouac was followed home by Martin County sheriff’s deputies just over two years ago after a visit to Mr. Nice Guy Hydroponics. Deputies raided her home and found about 20 marijuana plants, some cannabis tincture and some harvested pot.

She said she needs the marijuana to help get her through days of pain and depression.

Facing 10 years in prison if convicted, Kirouac is scheduled to stand trial in Stuart next week, and her attorney is hopeful he can present a defense claiming the pot was medicinal and that a recommendation from Kirouac’s doctor in Maine is sufficient for her to legally use cannabis here.

“I will show the jury that this is a medical necessity,” said Stuart defense attorney Michael Minardi in a telephone interview Friday, “that she has a right to this treatment.”

 

 

 

 

He might convince the jury of that but I don't think it matters under our law. I don't think our law accepts certification by a doc from another state to establish medical necessity.

 

So even if he does convince the jury that this woman has a medical need, failing to convict her would still be jury nullification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gold Coast couple unapologetic about giving 13 year boy cannabis
Amanda Abate - 7News Brisbane

on June 18, 2016, 7:43 pm

 

 

For most of his life Joseph has suffered seizures so severe he’s broken his arms and legs around 10 times.

 

The only drug that has worked is cannabis oil.

 

“Joseph has now been 20 months seizure free.”

 

https://au.news.yahoo.com/qld/a/31866731/gold-coast-couple-unapologetic-about-giving-13-year-boy-cannabis/#page1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Gold Coast couple unapologetic about giving 13 year boy cannabis
Amanda Abate - 7News Brisbane

on June 18, 2016, 7:43 pm

 

 

For most of his life Joseph has suffered seizures so severe he’s broken his arms and legs around 10 times.

 

The only drug that has worked is cannabis oil.

 

“Joseph has now been 20 months seizure free.”

 

https://au.news.yahoo.com/qld/a/31866731/gold-coast-couple-unapologetic-about-giving-13-year-boy-cannabis/#page1

 

 

Lots of people have to give loved ones dangerous drugs. Generally a lot more dangerous than cannabis and often far less effective, as in this case. Yet it's noteworthy that these parents don't apologize.

 

Drug warriors should apologize for putting people into their situation. But they too are unapologetic. We'll keep electing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary Johnson will lose some libertarian votes over this

 

During a CNN town hall last week, a member of the audience asked Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president, about heroin legalization. Although the former New Mexico governor correctly pointed out that prohibition makes heroin use more dangerous, he disclaimed any interest in repealing it, saying his legalization agenda is limited to marijuana. He thereby undercut the utilitarian case against drug prohibition and missed an opportunity to make a moral case for individual freedom.

 

 

I think we should start with cannabis prohibition because it's the most obviously stupid and ending it enjoys popular support.

 

But we shouldn't stop there. Drug prohibition just makes prohibited drugs more dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DEA's Deep Throat Floating Trial Balloons About A Decision They Already Made

 

In a follow-up article published on July 4, the Santa Monica Observer's Stan Greene offers a notably different account of what would happen if the DEA moved marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II. While the original "groundbreaking article" (as Greene modestly describes it) said that change ""will have the effect of making THC products legal with a prescription in all 50 states," the new article, which features quotes from a second interview with the unidentified "DEA lawyer," says "moving marijuana to Schedule II is all about allowing people to do clinical research." The lawyer, whom Greene calls "Deep Throat," notes that any cannabis-derived medicine will "have to go through the same trials as anything else," saying "exhaustive scientific studies" will be required to survive "the FDA wringer." In other words, rescheduling marijuana will have no immediate impact on its availability as a medicine. The production, distribution, and consumption of marijuana for medical purposes (or any other purpose) will still be prohibited by federal law, regardless of what state law says.

 

Deep Throat also casts doubt on whether the change he predicts will actually happen, saying, "There's a reason I'm talking to you today, and it's to float a few trial balloons." Federal officials floating trial balloons usually do not announce that is what they're doing, and they usually do not do it in the Santa Monica Observer. Nor is it clear exactly whose trial balloons these are, since the lawyer "was not authorized to speak to the press." Furthermore, the idea that Deep Throat is floating trial balloons seems inconistent with his claim that "the decision has already been made."

 

 

I think the DEA will deny the petitions for rescheduling, tossing the ball to Congress, where there will surely be a sit-in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump, Clinton, Stein, and Johnson on Prohibition

 

They all sorta agree on cannabis policy and agree that any reforms should be limited to cannabis.

 

"We are not espousing the legalization of any drugs outside of marijuana," Johnson, the former CEO of a cannabis company, said during a CNN town hall last month. Pressed about whether he and his running mate, former Massachusetts governor William Weld, want to legalize drugs such as heroin, he said they would "keep the drugs illegal" while trying to reduce the harm caused by prohibition, which sounds similar to Jill Stein's position.

Johnson's campaign website likewise says "Johnson and Weld do not support the legalization of other recreational drugs that are currently illegal." But it also says, referring to the Founders, "Imagine their shock to learn that the government has decided it is appropriate to tell adults what they can put in their bodies." That, of course, is exactly what the government is doing when it "keep the drugs illegal."

 

 

And speaking of those illegal drugs, we're convicting people based on unreliable field tests.

 

...Despite the dubious nature of the evidence against her, Albritton ended up taking a plea deal that involved a 45-day jail sentence after she was told that she otherwise could spend up to two years behind bars. She ultimately spent just three weeks in jail, but that was the least of her punishment. She lost her job as the manager of an apartment complex in Monroe, Louisiana, and her new status as a felon made it impossible to find steady work that paid nearly as well, which in turn made it difficult to care for a son with cerebral palsy. Her whole life was upended by a crumb on the floor of her car that a lab test later found was not any sort of illegal drug. Albritton had no idea she had been exonerated until Gabrielson and Sanders tracked her down and got in touch with her.

 

In addition to the unreliability of field tests, Albritton's case illustrates the power that cops have thanks to excessive judicial faith in drug-sniffing dogs. Police supposedly stopped her car, which her boyfriend was driving, because he had failed to signal a lane change. It turned out the boyfriend did not have a driver's license, but the registration showed Albritton was the car's owner, making her presumptively responsible for any drugs police might find in it. At this point the cops had no justification for searching the car, as became clear when they asked her permission. Albritton consented to the search partly because she knew she was not carrying any drugs but also because one of the officers said that otherwise he would bring in a police dog. The implication was clear: Either he would search the car based on her "consent," or he would search it based on the dog's purported "alert," which like the field test might or might not actually indicate the presence of contraband.

 

One point that Gabrielson and Sanders do not make in their otherwise excellent exposé: It would be utterly absurd and unjust to lock Albritton up and ruin her life even if the speck of material on the floor of her car (which weighed in at less than two-hundredths of a gram) had contained cocaine. But whether or not they have anything to do with illegal drugs, Americans should be alarmed by the the fact that police have the power to stop your car at will, search it at will (assuming they have a dog or use the threat of one to obtain your consent), incriminate you with a test so unreliable that its results cannot be used in court, and railroad you into a felony conviction.

 

 

It's impossible to reduce this kind of harm while keeping those drugs illegal. It's disappointing that Gary Johson doesn't see that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites