The Speakeasy Blog

Norm Stamper, former police chief of Seattle, wants all of us to support California's Prop 19 initiative to legalize marijuana this November. He writes about it in The Huffington Post this week.

To make sure we realize that "We Are All Californians" really means all of us, Norm details 19 different groups of people who should support marijuana legalization. Well worth the read, I'm sure you'll agree.

While I personally don't plan to move to California even if Prop 19 passes (I'm sure some of you will), I do intend over the next two months to demonstrate that I Am A Californian. Will you?
 

Facebook may be the nation's hottest social networking site, but the company is no friend to the nation's hottest political issue. A marijuana legalization ad from the Just Say Now campaign has been banned for its use of a pot leaf image, stirring controversy among Facebook's massive population of marijuana reform activists. FireDogLake reports:

Just Say Now, our campaign for marijuana legalization with Students for Sensible Drug Policy, ran ads promoting our campaign that showed our logo, which uses a marijuana leaf.

Despite the ad running more than 38 million times, Facebook flip-flopped and started censoring our ads and our political speech.

I think I can guess how all of this went down: Facebook ran the ad millions of times, resulting in a few angry letters from crazed anti-drug types who ignored the political message of the ad and mindlessly accused Facebook of promoting drug use. Facebook responded by censoring the offending ad and now they've got an exponentially greater mess on their hands.

Facebook may be within its rights to choose what it considers appropriate ad content, but attempting to suppress a surging national debate is plainly idiotic. Criticism has erupted across the site and is spreading like wildfire thanks to Facebook's excellent news-sharing functionality. That's good news for the Just Say Now campaign, but bad news for Facebook, which would do well not to alienate its massive population of marijuana users and activists.

Please help out by sending Facebook a message that the movement for marijuana reform cannot be silenced. Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, Just Say Now's ads can be found uncensored here on our site.

I guess it’s better than sending them to jail, but forcing offenders to draft political opinions smacks of drug war brainwashing.

GARDNVERVILLE, Nev.—A Nevada judge has issued a homework assignment in the form of an unusual sentence for a 25-year-old Sacramento man who sold marijuana to a police informant in a casino parking lot at Lake Tahoe.

District Judge Dave Gamble ordered Matthew Palazzolo to write a report on what the judge called the "nonsensical character" of California's medical marijuana law.

Gamble gave Palazzolo 90 days to complete the paper discussing his self-admitted realization that marijuana was a gateway drug that led him to use more powerful narcotics.
…
Palazzolo's attorney Derrick Lopez said the arrest and substance abuse treatment convinced his client he had a drug problem. [AP]

Well, it's a good thing they arrested him, otherwise he'd never have learned that doing drugs leads to problems like getting arrested. Of course, it's possible that Palazzolo had serious problems with drugs, but anyone who's arrested for a marijuana offense and tossed in front of a judge is liable to say something like that. No one goes in front of the judge and says they were selling pot to get money for fancy clothes.

So yeah, there are plenty of reports to be written about the "nonsensical character" of our marijuana laws, but California's policy of not arresting medical users isn't exactly where I'd begin.

Houston-area journalist Clarence Walker reflects on a trillion drug war dollars spent in: President Obama's New Drug War Strategy and the Low-Down on 'America's Trillion Dollar Dope Game'

How much is a trillion dollars worth to you?

See updates below.

Mike Meno at MPP points out that Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul no longer supports medical marijuana. That's right, folks. Rand Paul, son of the famously libertarian-leaning and pro-marijuana-reform Congressman Ron Paul, is now in favor of arresting sick people for medical marijuana.

How did this happen? Well, Paul seems to be suffering from a fit of desperation in the aftermath of a weird college bong controversy, followed by a series of super-lame "soft on crime" attacks from his Democratic opponent, Jack Conway. The whole situation is an ugly throwback to the polarizing crime politics of the 1980's, and it's just pathetic that Rand Paul fell for it.

Sure, marijuana reform may not sell as well in Kentucky as it does in California, but posing as a typical drug warrior politician serves only to undermine Paul's credibility with libertarians while failing to deflect his opponent's inevitable attacks. By backing down, Paul lost the ability to defend his position and connect with a huge number of voters who share his views. Meanwhile, his past statements in support of medical marijuana will still be held against him by the few people who actually have a problem with it.

The worst part is that if Paul loses the election, it may appear to vindicate the "soft on crime" attack strategy that his opponent deployed. Who knows what would have happened if Paul had actually stood up for himself and turned the tables by pointing out that Jack Conway wants to continue arresting cancer patients at an enormous cost to tax-payers. It may or may not have worked, but it's better than backing down and letting your opponent redefine your political identity.

Whether Rand Paul will be the next Kentucky Senator remains be seen. But it's clear he won't be the next Ron Paul.

Update: As some commenters have pointed out, we don't have a direct quote on this from Rand Paul. Here's what the AP story says:

Paul, a tea party favorite, shows libertarian leanings on drugs. He said he is opposed to the legalization of marijuana, even for medicinal purposes. But he also has called drug sentences of 10 to 20 years too harsh.

Some of you felt that he may have been misquoted, and that's a possibility, although the story is a week old and hasn't been corrected or disputed by Paul. I also agree that the real drug warrior in the KY Senate race is clearly Jack Conway. My comments focused on Paul because I wanted to illustrate a point about why it didn't make sense for him to shy away from his position on marijuana reform. I agree that Rand Paul is still the better candidate when it comes to drug policy, I just wish he'd handled this situation differently.

Update 2: Mike Meno at MPP got in touch with the Paul campaign and was told that Rand Paul is standing by his state's rights position on marijuana policy. That means the AP quote is inaccurate. Unfortunately, Paul also refuses to say whether he personally supports marijuana reform, other than to allow states to make their own decision about it. So his position is better than my initial post suggested, but not as good as I previously believed it to be.

I'm sorry that I passed along AP's misleading characterization of Paul's position and I certainly wouldn't want drug policy reformers to get the wrong idea about Rand Paul.

(This article was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske is back in damage control mode again following Mexican President Felipe Calderon's call for a debate on legalizing drugs.

Kerlikowske, known officially as the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, spoke this morning at a border security conference in El Paso, where he tried to debunk the belief that taxing and regulating currently illegal narcotics would somehow put narco-traffickers out of business.

“[Traffickers] would not change their ways and turn to legal pursuits if drugs were legal,” he said. “Legalizing drugs makes them cheaper, makes them more accessible and therefore makes them more widely abused.” [Texas Tribune]

 

I would love for Kerlikowske to explain to me how legalization is going to completely change everything, yet somehow fail to affect the illicit market. Rather obviously, if drugs become much cheaper, the cartels get screwed. That is so painfully simple, I'm running out of ways to explain it.

As usual, the argument once again comes down to this ridiculous division over whether or not legalization hurts drug kingpins. It shouldn't take more than a kernel of common sense to solve this riddle, and if that's too much to ask, history has also settled this debate rather decisively for us. We did once ban the most popular drug in the country, and then legalized it again, so there's plenty to be learned from that experience if one is so inclined. Alcohol prohibition was the only period in American history during which the alcohol industry was controlled by murderous gangsters. Everyone knows that.

Of course, the only reason we even have a drug czar is to confuse people about how drug policy actually works. We've spent enormous sums over the years empowering government propagandists to distort the debate, and if there's anything remarkable about Kerlikowske's various comments on legalization, it's how bland, brief and boring they've been. His job is literally to clarify the Obama administration's opposition to legalization in as few words as humanly possible, so as to avoid getting anyone excited. His goal is to make the conversation less interesting, and he does a pretty good job.

Unfortunately for the drug czar, it really doesn't matter very much how he expresses his opposition to legalizing drugs. He's just the latest stooge to be tasked with the miserable duty of dealing with us, and as long as we keep forcing the subject, we're scoring points.

If you don't think racial profiling is a real problem, I'd like to introduce you to some young men who beg to differ. Anyone in the black community who opposes marijuana legalization should see this video:

Is it any wonder that the consequences of our marijuana laws fall hardest on people of color? If that's who police are stopping and searching, then that's who will be arrested and stuck with a criminal record the rest of their life. The whole situation is so blatantly horrible and unfair, it's hard to believe anyone was even remotely surprised to see NAACP finally speaking out about it.

You can't call it a fringe idea when heads of state are bringing it up. Following Mexican President Felipe Calderon's call for a debate about legalizing drugs, his predecessor Vicente Fox is going a step further and calling for outright legalization.

flag of Mexico

MEXICO CITY (AP) — Former President Vicente Fox is joining with those urging his successor to legalize drugs in Mexico, saying that could break the economic power of the country's brutal drug

cartels.

…

"We should consider legalizing the production, distribution and sale of drugs," wrote Fox, who was president from 2000 to 2006 and is a member of Calderon's conservative National Action Party. "Radical prohibition strategies have never worked."

"Legalizing in this sense does not mean drugs are good and don't harm those who consume them," he wrote. "Rather we should look at it as a strategy to strike at and break the economic structure that allows gangs to generate huge profits in their trade, which feeds corruption and increases their areas of power."

The full-on legalization debate that's seemed inevitable in Mexico for so long now is finally beginning to take shape. And isn't it amazing that the discussion is emerging from the highest levels of government? In America, it's taken decades of grassroots activism to provoke a serious discussion within mainstream political culture. Our president remains rudely dismissive even when confronted by surging support for reform within his base.

Though engaged in the same conversation, our two countries are worlds apart when it comes to the consequences of prohibition. The exhaustion felt by Fox and Calderon is beyond justified and, if anything, I'm surprised they're only now beginning to test the waters for a change in direction. Given the imperative that there remain synchronicity between Mexican and American drug policy, my best guess would be that Mexican leadership has been anticipating a move towards legalization for some time now and simply waiting for a favorable political climate in which to begin floating the idea.

At the very least, vocalizing Mexico's reluctance to continue prohibition is a fine negotiating tactic when it comes to securing American drug war funding. "Pay up, or we'll shut it down," is probably the best angle they've got at this point. Let's hope there's more to it than that.

This Reason.tv interview with LEAP Executive Director Neill Franklin makes a number of strong points:

I'm particularly interested in Neill's argument regarding the dramatic drop in clearance rates for homicides over the past few decades. Of course, it would be difficult to prove empirically that increased drug prosecutions make it harder to solve murders. Still, it's certainly an unflattering portrait of modern law enforcement priorities that we get better and better at arresting people for petty marijuana possession, while more and more people are literally getting away with murder.

It makes less sense the more you think about it. Forensic science has advanced by leaps and bounds since the 1960's. We have fancy cameras and computers and a million other nifty gadgets at our disposal to help us piece together events and get to the bottom of the story when a terrible crime is committed. Technology for solving murders has advanced far more than the typical means of committing them. So why are police solving fewer murders? I can't say for sure, but my first guess would be the same factor that's driven up our murder rates in the first place: the war on drugs.

But don't take it from me. Neill Franklin was in law enforcement for over 30 years. He witnessed first-hand the seismic shift in police priorities that occurred during the vast drug war expansion. No one is more qualified to address these questions, and everyone who hates murder should be interested in what he has to say.

After presiding for years over the bloodiest drug war escalation in history, Mexican President Felipe Calderon is finally ready to discuss legalization.

MEXICO CITY — President Felipe Calderon said he would consider a debate on legalizing drugs Tuesday as his government announced that more than 28,000 people have been killed in drug violence since he launched a crackdown against cartels in 2006.
…
"It's a fundamental debate in which I think, first of all, you must allow a democratic plurality (of opinions)," he said. "You have to analyze carefully the pros and cons and the key arguments on both sides." [AP]

It's just an earth-shattering concession from the man who staked his presidency on a desperate attempt to prove that aggressive enforcement could somehow restore peace and order. Now, with the streets stained in blood and corruption permeating the highest levels of government, Calderon appears poised to confront the crushing reality that there's just no upside to any of this. He needs room to maneuver, and after exhausting every traditional tactic in the drug prohibition playbook, there remains only one conversation left to be had.

Of course, Calderon was careful to clarify that he's acknowledging, rather than endorsing, the legalization argument:

But Calderon has long said he is opposed to the idea, and his office issued a statement hours after the meeting saying that while the president was open to debate on the issue, he remains "against the legalization of drugs."

 

Riiiight. He's a politician and surely realizes that paying lip service to a touchy subject like this serves only to give it momentum. Posturing aside, Calderon knows exactly what happens when you open this door. He can see it already in the American press, and I can only imagine that he's now perfectly willing to witness the emergence of a sizable movement for reform in Mexico. If he weren't, you can bet he'd never dare drop the "L" word with a microphone at his mouth.

Whether he intended to or not, Calderon has spent his presidency performing the most compelling imaginable exhibit in the failure of prohibition. After sacrificing so much, his only chance at redemption may depend on his willingness to take the lead in learning something from the smoldering nightmare that now surrounds him.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson at New America Media notes that last week's major reform of crack cocaine sentencing guidelines failed to meet with much opposition from the right. It's another powerful sign that drug war politics are changing before our eyes.

The silence of House Republicans on the congressional reform measure hardly means that mainstream GOP politicians are ready to become full-blown anti-drug war crusaders. However, the willingness of so many prominent conservatives to publicly voice their doubts about drug laws signals that drug reform is no longer a taboo subject within the GOP. The drug war, in effect, is now a legitimate subject of conservative debate.

The softening of GOP opposition is not entirely due to an epiphany about runaway costs and the threat to liberties. It’s also about politics. Polls show that a sizeable number of voters now think that the drug war has failed or is ineffective. A majority of voters in a growing number of states overwhelmingly back medical marijuana legalization, and even full legalization of marijuana for adults. Drug law reform, then, is clearly an issue that’s back on the nation’s political table. The GOP aims to have a seat at that table.

See, a lot of politicians just stare blankly back at you when you try to explain that the drug war horribly sucks and destroys everything. But when you pull out the poll numbers, suddenly there's a dialogue to be had and progress to be made. Funny how that works.

Of course, fixing federal drug laws is anything but easy. Last week's victory was literally decades in the making, but it nonetheless signals a dramatic departure from the long-standing principle that drug policy reform in Congress is a political impossibility. If we can reform crack laws without igniting any vicious partisan mudslinging, then it should be possible to move forward towards addressing countless other costly and counterproductive drug policies that only Congress can correct.

Pete Guither at Drug War Rant calls it an "absolutely brilliant video." Jon Berry at MPP says it's "a must-watch for marijuana policy reform activists." And I think it's pretty good, too. This is called The Flower by Haik Hoisington and it deserves all the viral traffic it's been getting: