The Drug War and the Constitution

I think I may have found the best argument on the web with regards the drug war and how it violates the very principles of our Constitution and The Bill of Rights. The Aurthur Paul Hager is the 2000 Libertarian Senate nominee of the Indiana Libertarian Party. Hager received 33,992 votes for 1.6% of the total vote.

I'd like to draw your attention to companion notes that I put together for this talk. They're located on the tables out back there, and I think that those of you who are doing CLE have them in your manuals.

Well, I'm going to attempt to descend into the murky depths of political philosophy and Constitutional analysis. At the outset, I do have a caveat: the arguments I am going to be presenting have never been endorsed by Congress or the courts and I hope that during the question and answer session we can get into this in a little bit more detail.

The thesis that I want to advance today is that the drug war and the laws that prohibit the private consumption of certain drugs are un-Constitutional. Prohibition laws, themselves, violate every tenet of limited government that is embodied in our Constitution.

To begin, let me pose a question: why was it necessary to amend the Constitution in order to prohibit the drug alcohol? And, while you are cogitating on that: how is it possible to prohibit other drugs without going through the formal amendment process? Well, I think, in order to answer these questions, it's necessary to take a look at what the Constitution is supposed to be.

At the recent confirmation hearings of Judge Clarence Thomas (uh, Clarence Thomas, by the way, -- he and I have at least two things in common: we're both ex marijuana users [chuckles from the audience], and we're both married to attorneys) -- in any case, there was a lot of discussion at the hearings about natural law and natural rights. Just about all of the participants seemed to agree that our system recognizes the existence of "inalienable" natural rights and that government exists to "secure" those rights for its citizens. It's just as well that they agreed on that -- the architects of our system of government, in fact, had that principle in mind, and they viewed the Constitution as being a blueprint for a limited government in which those powers that were to be made available to the federal government would be listed. If a power is not listed in the Constitution, it is not supposed to be available to the Federal government. Two hundred odd years ago, when the Bill of Rights -- which we're here to celebrate -- was being debated, there were those who opposed the Bill of Rights on the grounds that, uh, they're completely unnecessary. It's redundant -- the rights already exist and therefore they don't have a place in the Constitution. In fact, they made the argument that a Bill of Rights is dangerous because at some future point in time, people would get the idea that if a right wasn't to be found in the Constitution -- like privacy -- it did not exist. Perhaps the best articulation I've ever seen of this principle is to be found in The Federalist Papers...

The rest of this excellent article can be found at the Drug War Library

David Nutt: Governments should get real on drugs

IF THERE is one thing that politicians can and should do to limit the damage caused by illegal drugs, it is to take careful note of the evidence and develop a rational drug policy. Some politicians find it easier to ignore the evidence, and pander to public prejudice instead.

I can trace the beginning of the end of my role as chairman of the UK's official advisory body on drugs to the moment I quoted a New Scientist editorial (14 February, p 5). Entitled, fittingly enough, "Drugs drive politicians out of their minds", the editorial asked the reader to imagine being seated at a table with two bowls, one containing peanuts, the other the illegal drug MDMA (ecstasy). Which is safer to give to a stranger? Why, the ecstasy of course.

I quoted these words in the Eve Saville lecture at King's College London in July. This example plus other comments I have made – such as horse riding is more harmful than ecstasy – prompted Alan Johnson, the home secretary, to say that I had crossed the line from science to policy. This, he said, is why I had to go.

But simple, accurate and understandable statements of scientific fact are precisely what the advisory council is supposed to provide. Why would any scientist take up some future offer of a government advisory post when their advice can be treated with such disdain?

As well as ignoring its own advisers, the UK is falling out of step with international trends. When Portugal softened its drugs laws in 2001, drug use remained roughly constant, but ill health and deaths from drug taking fell. Decriminalisation quietly crept up the agenda in Vienna this year at a meeting of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, where governments heard new, independent evidence on how the harms of criminalisation were outweighing the benefits. In August, President Felipe Calderón of Mexico approved a law decriminalising possession of small amounts of marijuana and other drugs. And just last month, Eric Holder, the US attorney general, instructed federal prosecutors to stop hounding medical users of marijuana in the 14 states where such use is legal.

No one doubts that heavy users of marijuana are risking trouble with their mental health. What I have simply pointed out is that we need a consistent policy, recognising that heavy users of alcohol and tobacco are more numerous and are causing themselves – and others – even more trouble through their indulgence.

Policies that ignore the realities of the world we live in are doomed to fail. This is true for just about all the biggest issues that we confront, from energy and climate to criminal justice, health and immigration. I'm not arguing that science dictate policy; considerations such as cost, practicality and morality also have a role. But scientific evidence should never be brushed aside from the political debate.

The current British government has said repeatedly that it wants its policies to be evidence-based, but actions speak louder than words. On ecstasy, for example, it made policy first, sought advice second – and cynically rejected the advice it was given. The result is shambolic policy-making which gives great cause for concern if that is how governments operate more generally.

The results of a government inventing its own reality and acting on it can be seen in the appalling consequences the George W. Bush presidency had for world peace, the environment and human rights. The message for the British government is a simple one: don't exclude rational argument in order to exploit a visceral public response. Politicians have to win the hearts and minds of their electorate. If your policy is informed by an underlying moral imperative, be open about what that is, and don't try to disguise it with a veneer of pseudo-science. We ignore scientific evidence at our peril.


Original Article New Scientist
David Nutt, professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London, was chairman of the UK government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs until he was dismissed last week by the UK home

Health board changes MMJ "caregiver" rule

The smoke has cleared and when everything was said and done I think that its not that bad of an outcome today.

In a 9-0 vote the Colorado Board of Health voted today to temporarily revise rules governing medical marijuana in order to comply with a court decision that said a 'caregiver' must do more than give patients medicine.

For the consumer, they will receive different services that may not have been offered to them in the past. We think that this is something that should have been happening years ago but. Now if you look at it from the caregivers side... they now have to provide other services that have expenses, and it will have a price tag that will most definitely be passes along to the consumer. And it will also 'weed' out (pun intended) the bad shop and force the other 'non players' back into the underground system with possibility of being busted and clogging up the justice system.

The next hearing will be on December 16th and the Time is TBA but this is a cant miss event and something that everyone should and i think will attend.

CO. Health Board plans emergency vote to Weaken Medical Marijuana Law!!!

In an underhanded move, the Colorado Board of Health will be voting to weaken the medical marijuana law at an "emergency" meeting on Tuesday, November 3 at 10:30am in Denver. At this stealth meeting the Board will be voting to redefine what a "caregiver" is to require such individuals to provide supplementary-- and often unnecessary-- services beyond simply providing sick patients with medical marijuana.

"This is like requiring my pharmacist to give me a massage or make me a sandwich," said Dan Pope, muscular dystrophy patient and medical card holder. "I can do those activities myself. I need a caregiver to give me medicine. End of story."

This meeting, which was announced in a late afternoon email to a small handful of patient advocates, is another example of the state engaging in underhanded tactics in their effort to undermine the medical marijuana law and the will of the Colorado voters. Please help hold them accountable.

Here's How You Can Help:

(1) Attend the Meeting. This meeting will occur at 10:30am on Tuesday, November 3 in the Snow Room, 1st Floor Building A of the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment, 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. South, Denver CO.

(2) Call-in to the Meeting. While we strongly prefer that you attend in person, you can also call-in at 1-866-899-5399, conference code *3529725*

(3) Spread the Word. Please tell friends and family to attend the meeting and forward this alert widely!

THC: Think Hemp Colorado

There has been so much goings on in the past week and not only in this great state of Colorado but all across the country in regards to cannabis. I heard one reporter on FOX news no less, say that the memo released on Monday from President Obama and the D.O.J. was in comparison to the Berlin Wall falling in the mid eighty's. Having said this we here at Mile High NORML are rejoicing but we also think that its only the beginning and the final chapter has yet to be written.

On Tuesday the day after the historic memo was released. Colorado Attorney General John Suthers came out and lashed the president publicly using harsh words of criticism. Suthers thinks that the Federal Government should "stay out of Colorado affairs regarding medical marijuana" because the laws are so vague. He would like to see clarification in the subject but with Colorado's medical marijuana law a part of the state constitution it makes it nearly imposable to amend. Which is exactly how the authors designed it.

On Wednesday Dem. State Sen. Chris Romer announced plans to introduce a medical-marijuana bill next year clarifying regulations involving pot-using patients. Denver attorney Rob Corry, who handles medical-marijuana cases, was quoted in saying, he is leery of lawmakers adding more government regulations "But if Sen. Romer is approaching this from the perspective of making medicine more accessible to patients and at a lower price, I'm less concerned about it," Read the DP article on Sen Romer

I read the Denver Post everyday and everyday i see the stories regarding marijuana and i am not sure how i should take it. The DP editorials dept support medical marijuana but by the sounds of its writers Reefer Madness is in full effect. This week article by Mike Mcphee in the paper really showed the true intentions of the paper. DEA Claims that the Mexican Cartels are supplying the Dispensaries here in Denver "dispensaries are popping up like mushrooms" And whats it doing is trying to scare the public away from medical marijuana. Now I have meet several growers recently around here and none of them are Mexican nor do they have any ties with any cartels. And quite frankly the pure racism is incredible hard to swallow. Read the DP article on Cartels This is not the first time that the DP has made comments against Mexicans. Over the summer the DP reported that the Forrest service released a statement saying "If you come across people listening to Mexican music drinking Hecate and eating tortillas there is a good chance that they are Mexican cartel members growing marijuana illegally??? Really

And finally with over 12,000 documented studies on Cannabonoids archived by the U.S. Library of Medicine and the National Institute of Health the US Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske on Fox Business High Noon yesterday he still said that there is no medical use for marijuana??? Really Gil Really???

Obama to sign new medical marijuana policy

AP NEWS BREAK - WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday.

Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state laws.

The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes.

Fourteen states allow some use of marijuana for medical purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

California is unique among those for the widespread presence of dispensaries — businesses that sell marijuana and even advertise their services. Colorado also has several dispensaries, and Rhode Island and New Mexico are in the process of licensing providers, according to the Marijuana Policy Project, a group that promotes the decriminalization of marijuana use.

Attorney General Eric Holder said in March that he wanted federal law enforcement officials to pursue those who violate both federal and state law, but it has not been clear how that goal would be put into practice.

A three-page memo spelling out the policy is expected to be sent Monday to federal prosecutors in the 14 states, and also to top officials at the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration.

The memo, the officials said, emphasizes that prosecutors have wide discretion in choosing which cases to pursue, and says it is not a good use of federal manpower to prosecute those who are without a doubt in compliance with state law.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the legal guidance before it is issued.

"This is a major step forward," said Bruce Mirken, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. "This change in policy moves the federal government dramatically toward respecting scientific and practical reality."

At the same time, the officials said, the government will still prosecute those who use medical marijuana as a cover for other illegal activity. The memo particularly warns that some suspects may hide old-fashioned drug dealing or other crimes behind a medical marijuana business.

In particular, the memo urges prosecutors to pursue marijuana cases which involve violence, the illegal use of firearms, selling pot to minors, money laundering or other crimes.

And while the policy memo describes a change in priorities away from prosecuting medical marijuana cases, it does not rule out the possibility that the federal government could still prosecute someone whose activities are allowed under state law.

The memo, officials said, is designed to give a sense of prosecutorial priorities to U.S. Attorneys in the states that allow medical marijuana. It notes that pot sales in the United States are the largest source of money for violent Mexican drug cartels, but adds that federal law enforcement agencies have limited resources.

Medical marijuana advocates have been anxious to see exactly how the administration would implement candidate Barack Obama's repeated promises to change the policy in situations in which state laws allow the use of medical marijuana.

Shortly after Obama took office, DEA agents raided four dispensaries in Los Angeles, prompting confusion about the government's plans.

AP NEWS BREAK

Another Stiletto Stoner Story: Elle Magazine on marijuana as anxiety relief

We are seeing a barrage of Main Stream News articles of the past few weeks regarding marijuana and here's the newest... First there was the Stiletto Stoners in Marie Claire followed by Coverage of the article on The Today's Show with Matt Lauer and now this. Elle magazine looks into the benefits of marijuana when suffering with or from anxiety. Elle Magazine

"Each time I went to pick up my dosage at a dispensary, I weighed the costs of medicinal marijuana. While the literal cost was roughly the same as street weed (on average, $55 for the standard 3.5 grams, known colloquially as “an eighth”), I did pay a price in that all of a sudden, my pot smoking was a habit to be discussed with others. My parents resisted the idea at first; my mom handed me more than her usual share of newspaper clippings on the harm smoke inflicts on the lungs or the latest DEA dispensary raid. I got good at relaying what I’d read in studies—that modulation of my cannabinoid system may alleviate anxiety disorder more quickly than SSRIs and with fewer side effects—to the point that people usually agreed to let me go about my own business, as long as it made me feel better."