RustyWhite's Blog

Open Thread

Will anything sensible be done? Of course not. The American people are as devoted to the idea of sin and its punishment as they are to making money-and fighting drugs is nearly as big a business as pushing them. Since the combination of sin and money is irresistible (particularly to the professional politician), the situation will only grow worse.

Reuters OpEd by Bernd Debusmann: America's never-ending prohibition. A good piece.

Quotable from WindyPundit:

If cops can't do their job without terrorizing the citizens, then they're trying to do the wrong job.

Florida Prosecutor Refuses to Work With DEA (more fallout in the Rachel Hoffman case)

********************

From: DrugWarRant.com

For a scary look at how little things have changed in 38 years, read this amazing OpEd by Gore Vidal on September 26, 1970

Joy Strickland: Drug laws fertilize teen violence

12:00 AM CDT on Friday, July 18, 2008

Joy Strickland is CEO of the local chapter of Mothers Against Teen Violence and may be reached through www.matv inc.org.

 

As an advocate in the crusade to prevent teen violence, my starting point is that every child deserves a safe and supportive home, school and community. Prevention strategies such as mentoring and conflict resolution – not to mention personal responsibility – are key pieces of the strategies of Mothers Against Teen Violence and other groups committed to preventing violence in our communities.

But those pieces are only part of the solution and must be balanced and supported by a rational and effective national drug policy.

 

Enacted during the Nixon administration, the so-called war on drugs was designed to reduce supply and diminish demand for certain substances deemed harmful or undesirable. But the drug war has never met this objective, and unintended consequences have undermined the health and safety of our citizens, especially our children.

 

I will never forget 9-year-old Cory Weems, who was killed by a stray bullet in 1994 while having ice cream on his grandmother's front porch in Dallas. A drug dealer engaged in a car chase was convicted of this crime. Cory's picture hangs on my office wall, a reminder of one of the drug war's victims.

 

Or consider that despite billions spent annually toward arresting and prosecuting nearly 800,000 people for marijuana offenses, high school students continue to find marijuana easy to obtain.

By some estimates, as many as 250,000 people die every year from the proper use of prescription drugs. On the other hand, I am not aware of one single death directly caused by marijuana. Yet we pay $25,000 per year to send a drug user to prison, where he will likely have access to the same drugs for which he has been incarcerated.

If we can't keep drugs out of prisons, it is irrational to expect that we can keep them off our streets. It is equally irrational to lock up an individual because of what he chooses to put in his own body.

Drug addiction is not a moral issue. It is a medical problem requiring medical intervention. But if news reports are any indication, it is easy to believe that the rich and famous go to rehab while the poor go to jail. This disparity is the real moral issue.

The drug war keeps prices for the targeted substances artificially high, assuring that drug trafficking remains an incredibly profitable venture. The fantastic sums of money flowing from illegal drug sales have caused elected officials, police officers and prison guards – just to name a few – to fall prey to drug trafficking.

****************************************

Posted BY: Rusty White

Speaker www.leap.cc

Some great responses by readers in yesterday's post about the drug czar's flawed "argument, and I'll just add a couple of thoughts...

What the drug czar's office is using there (and what they do so often) is the Straw Man argument - a logical fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

This is essentially the line of argument used:

Drug policy reformers claim that legalization and regulation will result in an end of all violent crime related to drugs, yet here are some specific examples of violent crimes related to drugs. Therefore, the drug policy reformers are wrong.

Classic straw man. Reformers have never claimed that legalization and regulation would end all crime. Rather, our argument has been that crime -- specifically prohibition-related crime -- would be greatly reduced. And that's true. As has been pointed out by the readers here, robberies of valuable goods will happen in any area, and that has nothing to do with the prohibition vs. regulation argument, (other than the fact that under the regulation system, it's actually easier to catch the criminals since the owners can call the police.)

If you look at the whole picture, the argument is absurd. We talk about dramatically reducing gang violence and cartel violence and street shootings and armed conflicts over territory and armed conflicts with police... and the drug czar says "but someone might try to break in and steal the drugs if they're regulated."

Now since since prohibitionists are always in a position of arguing without actual facts or reason on his side, logical fallacies are heavily used, and it's useful to be able to identify them.

The Nirvana Fallacy

Burden of Proof

Appealing to Motive

Poisoning the well

There are others used certainly -- Appealing to Fear is a big one, for example. (What others can you identify?) Understanding the logical fallacies used by the drug czar is a great help in easily dismantling his groundless "arguments."

********  Provided By : DrugWarRant.Com *******

Rusty White

Speaker www.leap.cc

used to be used more, but is getting much harder. It's the argument that says "look at that long-haired pot head who is talking about legalization." But when you have people like Walter Cronkite and William F. Buckley, Jr. and LEAP promoting legalization, it's a much harder fallacious argument to get away with. is most often used against medical marijuana support. You've all seen this one: "drug policy reformers don't give a rat's BLEEP about sick people -- they just want medical marijuana legalized in order to get marijuana legalized" is also used by prohibitionists in... interesting ways. They ask us to show extreme levels of proof regarding the levels of drug use and abuse that would exist post-legalization -- levels of proof that are impossible with no real-world laboratory to test (which they also work to prevent). This, despite the reality that they cannot prove the efficacy of their method (in fact, the proof is that their solution does not work). So what we have is a proven failure (prohibition) in place, with plenty of evidence that regulation would work much better, yet we're told there's not enough proof to consider turning from a failed path. is the assumption that there must be a perfect solution to a problem. This is bizarrely used by prohibitionists even though they cannot ever show that their solution has any chance of working at all. But you see them oddly using it: "legalization won't stop people from abusing drugs... legalization won't end violence.."

There's one problem often faced by those of us well versed in the facts of the drug war. We know the history and the science. We're able to clearly distinguish the difference between negative consequences of drugs and negative consequences of prohibition. Our factual knowledge base is, quite frankly, overwhelming, and all of it points clearly, unmistakably, and inexorably to reform.

We're even open to carefully considering opposing arguments (which fail the test of reason time after time), thus strengthening our confidence in the comprehensive nature of our information.

This didn't happen overnight in most cases. It was the result of a lot of research, observation, and critical thinking.

So when we come across someone who opposes reform, we assume one of two things:

They are profiting from the drug war (politically, financially, or sadomoralistically) and thus are uninterested in the truth.

They simply don't have the facts yet.

Once we're relatively sure that the person is not category 1, then all we have to do is educate them. Right?

And yet, sometimes we find ourselves baffled by the reaction.

There are individuals for whom you could prove conclusively that:

Legalization would result in less crime

Legalization would result in reduced use of drugs by children

Legalization would result in reduced drug abuse

Legalization would result in enormous financial savings

Legalization would result in dismantling of dangerous criminal organizations

... and they would still look at you like you were a crazy person bent on destruction of civilization as we know it for even suggesting consideration of legalization, even in controlled, regulated and limited situations.

These people are suffering from a form of cognitive distortion. [The term is most often used in relation to cognitive therapy to deal with things like depression, but I think it's also appropriate to this situation.]

The cause? An authority figure need combined with a lifetime of propaganda. This combination sets the information down in pathways that cannot be disrupted by mere facts. (The conflict between factual information and established pathways can even cause unpleasant cognitive dissonance, resulting in lashing out against the person with the facts.)

Now I'm probably generalizing way too much in this post, but I'm guessing that a weak and/or fearful mind is much more susceptible to this kind of thing.

On the other hand... if, as a child, you found yourself on occasion saying to yourself "Hey, my teacher got that one wrong," -- and it was because of your own knowledge and not blind adherence to some other authority figure (church/parents) -- then I'm guessing you're probably less susceptible to propaganda and this form of cognitive distortion.

How do you deal with those with cognitive distortion? (Other than years of therapy.) It's not easy. Those with only mildly set propaganda pathways may be dislodged through gentle yet persistent repetition of facts. It also helps, of course, to eliminate the propaganda reinforcement (we've got to do something about the ONDCP).

Maybe, once we've legalized drugs, we can use some of those hundreds of thousands of empty prison cells and convert them to mental health facilities to help the cognitively disabled. We wouldn't want them to suffer.

.... thus ends today's two-bit psychoanalysis.

 

Thanks, to www.DrugWarRant.com  

May 10th, 2008 By: Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director

The Tallahassee Police Have Much To Answer For Regarding The Murder Of Rachael Hoffman

For the last few days I’ve receive email from the Tallahassee area from NORML supporters claiming to either know or be friends with Rachael Hoffman, that she was busted a few weeks ago and accused by police for selling a small amount of cannabis and possessing MDMA was squeezed by local police to become a snitch, and that, disturbingly to them all, she had been missing for a few days. They were genuinely in fear of her life.

In the last 48 hours, police arrested two suspects in Rachael’s disappearance, and early yesterday she was confirmed murdered.

Today, as the general public around Tallahassee and Florida learn more about how the police used this young woman for controlled drug buys, the public comments found online and on local radio talk shows demonstrate terrific outrage directed towards the police.

Thankfully.

I spoke with Rachael’s mother Margie Weifs late yesterday afternoon. Talk about a difficult conversation. What do you say to a mother who has just found out that her only daughter is dead? A beautiful daughter dead not at the hands of cannabis, but the police agency that chose to bust her for pot (or, as Tallahassee law enforcement are calling pot in this case, narcotics), wire her and send her towards men who were reportedly buying and selling hard drugs, actual narcotics, to ensnare them for future arrest and prosecution?

To say that Rachael’s mom is not confused, angry and wanting answers to this terrible tragedy in Tallahassee would be a woeful understatement. After the answers, she tells me she wants justice in this case.

Watch the video of Tallahassee’s Chief of Police here trying to explain why getting murdered was Rachael’s fault, not the police’s. Further, watch here the Police Department’s Public Information Officer get grilled by Florida media about police procedures.

Did the police follow proper procedure in using Rachael for controlled buys? See the Tallahassee Police’s ‘rules and procedures’ for using snitches here and here.

There is an outpouring in Tallahassee from Rachael’s friends and family to try to heal, and then to organize against both the recruitment of young girls by police to be wired confidential informants and the general prohibition of cannabis.

In Margie’s view, her daughter would be alive today, going into a Mother’s Day weekend, but for a country that does not tax and control cannabis.

Ms. Hoffman is hardly the first young person induced by police to set up other possible illicit drug users who has been killed because they’d hoped their cooperation with police was going to lead to some modicum of deferential treatment from the prosecutor’s office.

PBS’ Frontline examined the disturbing and increased use of confidential informants by federal and local law enforcement in the award-winning SNITCH. But, unfortunately from my biased viewpoint, few in the mainstream media have cast light on police tactics in their daily and futile efforts to enforce prohibition laws (an exception here is the reporting of Reason Foundation fellow and Cato Institute researcher Radley Balko).

Sadly as I watch " ALL " of us being played like a drum, I can't stop but to ask, WHY??? Those in CONTROL hate free speech, this scares them beyond guns or prison! Yet we let them turn our ONLY avenue left in to a disgrace??? Why do we turn on each other? Why do we fall for the BSSSSSSSSSSS???

If " THEY " can keep us distracted, WE DON'T ENTERACT, nor do we openly speak our concerns! Does ANYONE think these new posters just dropped by, buy accident??? I would suggest we “ ALL “ ignore the BS, and get back to openly talking about our concerns!!!

WE DESERVE WHAT WE SETTLE FOR!!!

Open Thread

                                               
                             OpEd

 

The "wrong message" to send to any teenager, to any child, is hypocrisy. It turns them cynical and makes them disrespect the law, when trusted adults evade reality for the sake of political concerns.

 

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in England, is recommending that marijuana remain at Class C and not be returned to the more punitive Class B. The Prime Minister, however, seems determined not to be swayed by pesky things like facts, science, or experts.

 

Colombia's chief drug war cheerleader -- President Alvaro Uribe -- has made his feelings known about the Presidential race here:

"I deplore that Senator Obama, aspiring to be president of the US, ignores Colombia's efforts."

    The Other Civil War by Keith Preston OpEd ... another civil war has been going on in this country for roughly the last forty years. I'm talking, of course, about the War on Drugs. For some, the "drug war" is seen as a metaphor or a symbolic war as opposed to a "real" war. I disagree. The War on Drugs involves people with guns, it involves killing and it involves taking prisoners. [...] It is of the utmost importance to recognize that the drug war is indeed a civil war. Many other nations have at times fallen into civil war over matters of race or ethnicity, religion, social class, territorial claims or political ideology. I submit that the drug war is a civil war over the matter of culture.

 

At Vice Squad: Man Acquitted of Possessing Crack Cocaine Gets 15 years

 

Apparently some people use marijuana because they enjoy it. 

Provided by: Peter and DrugWarRant.com

Open Thread

 

The "wrong message" to send to any teenager, to any child, is hypocrisy. It turns them cynical and makes them disrespect the law, when trusted adults evade reality for the sake of political concerns.

 

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in England, is recommending that marijuana remain at Class C and not be returned to the more punitive Class B. The Prime Minister, however, seems determined not to be swayed by pesky things like facts, science, or experts.

 

Colombia's chief drug war cheerleader -- President Alvaro Uribe -- has made his feelings known about the Presidential race here:

"I deplore that Senator Obama, aspiring to be president of the US, ignores Colombia's efforts."

 

 

 

The Other Civil War by Keith Preston OpEd ... another civil war has been going on in this country for roughly the last forty years. I'm talking, of course, about the War on Drugs. For some, the "drug war" is seen as a metaphor or a symbolic war as opposed to a "real" war. I disagree. The War on Drugs involves people with guns, it involves killing and it involves taking prisoners. [...] It is of the utmost importance to recognize that the drug war is indeed a civil war. Many other nations have at times fallen into civil war over matters of race or ethnicity, religion, social class, territorial claims or political ideology. I submit that the drug war is a civil war over the matter of culture.

 

At Vice Squad: Man Acquitted of Possessing Crack Cocaine Gets 15 years

 

 

 

Apparently some people use marijuana because they enjoy it. 

Provided by: Peter and DrugWarRant.com

The School Crotch Inspector!

Fighting the Advil menace, one strip search at a time

There are two kinds of people in the world: the kind who think it's perfectly reasonable to strip-search a 13-year-old girl suspected of bringing ibuprofen to school, and the kind who think those people should be kept as far away from children as possible. The first group includes officials at Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona, who in 2003 forced eighth-grader Savana Redding to prove she was not concealing Advil in her crotch or cleavage.

It also includes two judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, who last fall ruled that the strip search did not violate Savana's Fourth Amendment rights. The full court, which recently heard oral arguments in the case, now has an opportunity to overturn that decision and vote against a legal environment in which schoolchildren are conditioned to believe government agents have the authority to subject people to invasive, humiliating searches on the slightest pretext.

Safford Middle School has a "zero tolerance" policy that prohibits possession of all drugs, including not just alcohol and illegal intoxicants but prescription medications and over-the-counter remedies, "except those for which permission to use in school has been granted." In October 2003, acting on a tip, Vice Principal Kerry Wilson found a few 400-milligram ibuprofen pills (each equivalent to two over-the-counter tablets) and one nonprescription naproxen tablet in the pockets of a student named Marissa, who claimed Savana was her source.

Savana, an honors student with no history of disciplinary trouble or drug problems, said she didn't know anything about the pills and agreed to a search of her backpack, which turned up nothing incriminating. Wilson nevertheless instructed a female secretary to strip-search Savana under the school nurse's supervision, without even bothering to contact the girl's mother.

The secretary had Savana take off all her clothing except her underwear. Then she told her to "pull her bra out and to the side and shake it, exposing her breasts," and "pull her underwear out at the crotch and shake it, exposing her pelvic area." Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between drug warriors and child molesters.

"I was embarrassed and scared," Savana said in an affidavit, "but felt I would be in more trouble if I did not do what they asked. I held my head down so they could not see I was about to cry." She called it "the most humiliating experience I have ever had." Later, she recalled, the principal, Robert Beeman, said "he did not think the strip search was a big deal because they did not find anything."

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a public school official's search of a student is constitutional if it is "justified at its inception" and "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place." This search was neither.

When Wilson ordered the search, the only evidence that Savana had violated school policy was the uncorroborated accusation from Marissa, who was in trouble herself and eager to shift the blame. Even Marissa (who had pills in her pockets, not her underwear) did not claim that Savana currently possessed any pills, let alone that she had hidden them under her clothes.

Savana, who was closely supervised after Wilson approached her, did not have an opportunity to stash contraband. As the American Civil Liberties Union puts it, "There was no reason to suspect that a thirteen-year-old honor-roll student with a clean disciplinary record had adopted drug-smuggling practices associated with international narcotrafficking, or to suppose that other middle-school students would willingly consume ibuprofen that was stored in another student's crotch."

The invasiveness of the search also has to be weighed against the evil it was aimed at preventing. "Remember," the school district's lawyer recently told ABC News by way of justification, "this was prescription-strength ibuprofen." It's a good thing the school took swift action, before anyone got unauthorized relief from menstrual cramps.

Jacob Sullum | April 2, 2008

The School Crotch Inspector!

Fighting the Advil menace, one strip search at a time

There are two kinds of people in the world: the kind who think it's perfectly reasonable to strip-search a 13-year-old girl suspected of bringing ibuprofen to school, and the kind who think those people should be kept as far away from children as possible. The first group includes officials at Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona, who in 2003 forced eighth-grader Savana Redding to prove she was not concealing Advil in her crotch or cleavage.

It also includes two judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, who last fall ruled that the strip search did not violate Savana's Fourth Amendment rights. The full court, which recently heard oral arguments in the case, now has an opportunity to overturn that decision and vote against a legal environment in which schoolchildren are conditioned to believe government agents have the authority to subject people to invasive, humiliating searches on the slightest pretext.

Safford Middle School has a "zero tolerance" policy that prohibits possession of all drugs, including not just alcohol and illegal intoxicants but prescription medications and over-the-counter remedies, "except those for which permission to use in school has been granted." In October 2003, acting on a tip, Vice Principal Kerry Wilson found a few 400-milligram ibuprofen pills (each equivalent to two over-the-counter tablets) and one nonprescription naproxen tablet in the pockets of a student named Marissa, who claimed Savana was her source.

Savana, an honors student with no history of disciplinary trouble or drug problems, said she didn't know anything about the pills and agreed to a search of her backpack, which turned up nothing incriminating. Wilson nevertheless instructed a female secretary to strip-search Savana under the school nurse's supervision, without even bothering to contact the girl's mother.

The secretary had Savana take off all her clothing except her underwear. Then she told her to "pull her bra out and to the side and shake it, exposing her breasts," and "pull her underwear out at the crotch and shake it, exposing her pelvic area." Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between drug warriors and child molesters.

"I was embarrassed and scared," Savana said in an affidavit, "but felt I would be in more trouble if I did not do what they asked. I held my head down so they could not see I was about to cry." She called it "the most humiliating experience I have ever had." Later, she recalled, the principal, Robert Beeman, said "he did not think the strip search was a big deal because they did not find anything."

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a public school official's search of a student is constitutional if it is "justified at its inception" and "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place." This search was neither.

When Wilson ordered the search, the only evidence that Savana had violated school policy was the uncorroborated accusation from Marissa, who was in trouble herself and eager to shift the blame. Even Marissa (who had pills in her pockets, not her underwear) did not claim that Savana currently possessed any pills, let alone that she had hidden them under her clothes.

Savana, who was closely supervised after Wilson approached her, did not have an opportunity to stash contraband. As the American Civil Liberties Union puts it, "There was no reason to suspect that a thirteen-year-old honor-roll student with a clean disciplinary record had adopted drug-smuggling practices associated with international narcotrafficking, or to suppose that other middle-school students would willingly consume ibuprofen that was stored in another student's crotch."

The invasiveness of the search also has to be weighed against the evil it was aimed at preventing. "Remember," the school district's lawyer recently told ABC News by way of justification, "this was prescription-strength ibuprofen." It's a good thing the school took swift action, before anyone got unauthorized relief from menstrual cramps.

Jacob Sullum | April 2, 2008

A federal judge in Sacramento sentenced Dr. Marion "Mollie" Fry and her companion, attorney Dale Schafer, to five years in federal prison for conspiring to grow and distribute marijuana on March 19. Fry, who used marijuana herself in connection with radical breast cancer surgery, and Schafer, who used it for back pain and a dangerous form of hemophilia, also provided marijuana to patients under California's Compassionate Use Act.

Fry, Schafer and family at August 2007 demonstration (courtesy indybay.org)But the Justice Department prosecuted the couple under the federal marijuana laws, leaving US District Judge Frank Damrell Jr. no choice but to impose the mandatory minimum five-year prison sentenced required under the law because they had more than 100 plants.

"It is a sad day, a terrible day," Damrell said during sentencing, adding that if it were up to him, the punishment would have been less. But he also criticized Fry and Schafer for refusing to accept a plea bargain that could have left them free. "You had the opportunity to resolve this case, but you wanted to soldier on, knowing that your kid would be left behind," he told the couple.

In a departure from normal practice on the federal bench and to the delight of supporters who packed the courtroom, Judge Damrell granted the pair bail, so they will remain free while their case is appealed. Damrell, who is also presiding over the Bryan Epis case and has granted him bail too, said the exceptional circumstances of the case create "serious issues that need to be decided by an appellate court." Among those, he noted, are Fry and Schafer's claim they were entrapped.

Drug War Issues

Politics & Advocacy

Federal Courts Medical Marijuana

Texas Patient Wins Landmark Acquittal in Medical Marijuana Case
March 27, 2008

http://www.newsli.com:80/2008/03/27/texas-patient-
wins-landmark-acquittal-in-medical-marijuana-case/


(Long Island, N.Y.) A Texas patient who uses medical marijuana to treat the
symptoms of HIV won acquittal on marijuana possession charges March 25 based
on a "necessity defense." Though such a defense - which requires the
defendant to establish that an otherwise illegal act was necessary to avoid
imminent harm more serious than the harm prevented by the law he or she
broke - has rarely been successful in Texas, the jury took just 11 minutes
to acquit Tim Stevens, 53. The trial was hotly contested.
Stevens had never been in trouble until Amarillo police arrested him for
possessing less than 4 grams of marijuana. As a result of his HIV infection,
Stevens suffers from nausea and cyclical vomiting syndrome, a condition so
severe that he has required hospitalization and blood transfusions in the
past.

Extensive research has established medical marijuana as an effective
treatment for nausea and vomiting associated with HIV/AIDS and cancer
chemotherapy, uses recently acknowledged by the prestigious American College
of Physicians. Key in establishing Stevens' medical necessity was the
testimony of Dr. Steve Jenison, medical director of the Infectious Diseases
Bureau for the state of New Mexico's Department of Health.

"This case proved to be a testing ground for public attitudes toward medical
marijuana," said attorney Jeff Blackburn, who represented Stevens. "Even in
a very conservative part of a very conservative state, jurors were willing
to listen to the facts about medical marijuana and give Tim a break, and I
hope this case will help to create a trend in Texas."

"The common sense and decency exhibited by this Amarillo jury is typical of
what we see from voters around the country," said Ray Warren, director of
state policies for the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C., and a
former North Carolina Superior Court judge. "The American public doesn't
want to see seriously ill patients arrested and jailed for simply trying to
stay alive with the help of medical marijuana. It's time for legislators in
Texas and around the country to follow the public's lead and take action to
protect patients, so that no one battling a life-threatening illness has to
live in fear of arrest."

Texas Patient Wins Landmark Acquittal in Medical Marijuana Case
March 27, 2008

http://www.newsli.com:80/2008/03/27/texas-patient-wins
-landmark-acquittal-in-medical-marijuana-case/

(Long Island, N.Y.) A Texas patient who uses medical marijuana to treat the
symptoms of HIV won acquittal on marijuana possession charges March 25 based
on a "necessity defense." Though such a defense - which requires the
defendant to establish that an otherwise illegal act was necessary to avoid
imminent harm more serious than the harm prevented by the law he or she
broke - has rarely been successful in Texas, the jury took just 11 minutes
to acquit Tim Stevens, 53. The trial was hotly contested.
Stevens had never been in trouble until Amarillo police arrested him for
possessing less than 4 grams of marijuana. As a result of his HIV infection,
Stevens suffers from nausea and cyclical vomiting syndrome, a condition so
severe that he has required hospitalization and blood transfusions in the
past.

Extensive research has established medical marijuana as an effective
treatment for nausea and vomiting associated with HIV/AIDS and cancer
chemotherapy, uses recently acknowledged by the prestigious American College
of Physicians. Key in establishing Stevens' medical necessity was the
testimony of Dr. Steve Jenison, medical director of the Infectious Diseases
Bureau for the state of New Mexico's Department of Health.

"This case proved to be a testing ground for public attitudes toward medical
marijuana," said attorney Jeff Blackburn, who represented Stevens. "Even in
a very conservative part of a very conservative state, jurors were willing
to listen to the facts about medical marijuana and give Tim a break, and I
hope this case will help to create a trend in Texas."

"The common sense and decency exhibited by this Amarillo jury is typical of
what we see from voters around the country," said Ray Warren, director of
state policies for the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C., and a
former North Carolina Superior Court judge. "The American public doesn't
want to see seriously ill patients arrested and jailed for simply trying to
stay alive with the help of medical marijuana. It's time for legislators in
Texas and around the country to follow the public's lead and take action to
protect patients, so that no one battling a life-threatening illness has to
live in fear of arrest."

March 22, 2008

Barney Frank calls for decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana

Rep. Barney Frank will soon introduce legislation to decriminalize small
amounts of marijuana, the Massachusetts Democrat said during an
appearance on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher."

Frank offered no details on his legislation, and it's not at all clear
that he could ever get it to the House floor for a vote. A Frank aide
was unaware of his plans other than his statement on HBO.

Frank has introduced legislation in previous years to allow the use of
"medical marijuana," although the bills never made it out of the House
Energy and Commerce Committee.

Asked by Maher as to why he would push a pot decriminalization bill now,
Frank said the American public has already decided that personal use of marijuana is not a problem.

"I now think it's time for the politicians to catch up to the public," Frank said. "The notion that you lock people up for smoking marijuana is pretty silly. I'm going to call it the 'Make Room for Serious Criminals'
bill."

--

Micah Daigle, Field Director
Students for Sensible Drug Policy
1406 Hudson Ave, San Francisco, CA 94124
office: 415.875.9463
cell: 202.669.5315
AIM: ilikeathemicah

March 22, 2008

Barney Frank calls for decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana

Rep. Barney Frank will soon introduce legislation to decriminalize small
amounts of marijuana, the Massachusetts Democrat said during an
appearance on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher."

Frank offered no details on his legislation, and it's not at all clear
that he could ever get it to the House floor for a vote. A Frank aide
was unaware of his plans other than his statement on HBO.

Frank has introduced legislation in previous years to allow the use of
"medical marijuana," although the bills never made it out of the House
Energy and Commerce Committee.

Asked by Maher as to why he would push a pot decriminalization bill now,
Frank said the American public has already decided that personal use of marijuana is not a problem.

"I now think it's time for the politicians to catch up to the public," Frank said. "The notion that you lock people up for smoking marijuana is pretty silly. I'm going to call it the 'Make Room for Serious Criminals'
bill."

--

Micah Daigle, Field Director
Students for Sensible Drug Policy
1406 Hudson Ave, San Francisco, CA 94124
office: 415.875.9463
cell: 202.669.5315
AIM: ilikeathemicah