• Letter Writer of the Month

    Letter Writer of the Month – April

    ROBERT SHARPE

    DrugSense recognizes Robert Sharpe for his 11 letters published
    during April, bringing the total number of published letters archived
    by MAP to 2,475. Robert spends about an hour a day after work
    sending out letters. Where appropriate Robert references specific
    Drug War Facts http://www.drugwarfacts.org . Robert’s tips for letter
    writing success are at http://www.mapinc.org/resource/tips.htm

    You may read Robert’s published letters at:
    http://www.mapinc.org/writer/Robert+Sharpe

  • Letter of the Week

    Letter Of The Week

    MARIJUANA NON-THREAT

    Marijuana is medicinal, but it’s not for everyone. Pills aren’t for
    everyone either.

    Suffering with chronic pain in my pectoral muscle is not cancer, but
    it’s not enjoyable for me to be hurting, either. If I take too many
    pills to alleviate the pain, there’s a great chance of getting ill
    (or even dying), but if I smoke too much marijuana, I will merely
    relax and get a good night’s sleep.

    Michigan residents who choose to use marijuana (legally for medicine)
    are threats to no one.

    Donna M. Paridee

    Warren

    Pubdate: Tue, 26 Apr 2011

    Source: Detroit Free Press

    Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v11/n259/a07.html

  • Drug Policy - Question of the Week

    Is Asset Forfeiture taxation?

    Drug Policy Question of the Week – 4-20-11

    As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 4-20-11.  http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3355.

    Question of the Week: Is Asset Forfeiture taxation?

    According to the U.S. Justice Department,

    “Civil forfeiture is a proceeding brought against the property rather than against the person who committed the offense. Civil forfeiture does not require either criminal charges against the owner of the property or a criminal conviction.”

    “…forfeiture can be used to seize and forfeit the following:
    • any amount of currency;
    • personal property valued at $500,000 or less, including cars, guns, and boats;
    • hauling conveyances of unlimited value.

    Real property cannot be forfeited administratively.”

    In 2009, U.S. Attorneys seized over one billion dollars in assets, roughly four times more than in 1989. During that 21 year span, the value of forfeited assets totaled 11 billion dollars, five billion short of the 2011 federal drug control budget.

    The Justice Department readily admits that,

    “… civil forfeiture expanded greatly during the early 1980s as governments at all levels stepped up the war on drugs.”

    The department goes on to claim,

    “… asset forfeiture can assist in the budgeting realm by helping to offset the costs associated with fighting crime. Doing what it takes to undermine the illicit drug trade is expensive and time-consuming. Forfeiture can help agencies target these difficult problems, sometimes without the need to seek additional outside resources to offset their costs.”

    In its 2010 report, the Institute for Justice called asset forfeiture

    “… legal fiction that enables law enforcement to take legal action against inanimate objects for participation in alleged criminal activity, regardless of whether the property owner is guilty or innocent—or even whether the owner is charged with a crime.”

    I have to ask, is asset forfeiture for merely alleged drug crimes taxation without representation?

    These facts and others like them can be found in the Asset Forfeiture Chapter of Drug War Facts at www.drugwarfacts.org.

  • Drug Policy - Question of the Week

    Do drug courts work?

    Drug Policy Question of the Week – 4-12-11

    As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 4-12-11.  http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3343.

    Question of the Week: Do drug courts work?

    A new report called “Drug Courts Are Not the Answer” from the Drug Policy Alliance defines drug courts as,

    “an application of therapeutic jurisprudence theories in which the judge does not ask whether the state has proven that a crime has been committed but instead whether the court can help to heal a perceived pathology.”

    The report goes on to say,

    “The judge is the ultimate arbiter of treatment and punishment decisions and holds a range of discretion unprecedented in the courtroom … The defense lawyer, no longer an advocate for the participant’s rights, assists the participant to comply with court rules.”

    The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers asserts,

    “Under the traditional drug court model, an individual must waive significant rights when entering drug court.”

    “Most drug courts require a guilty plea as the price of admission.”

    While drug courts have been praised for reducing recidivism and yielding positive cost/benefit ratios, the Congressional Research Service found,

    “Drug court evaluations have been widely criticized for methodological weaknesses and data inconsistencies. … the majority of drug court program evaluations (1) have either no comparison group or a biased comparison group, … (2) report outcomes only for participants who complete the program, … and (3) use flawed data-collection methods, such as drug court participants’ self-reported surveys.”

    District Judge Morris B. Hoffman concluded in the North Carolina Law Review,

    “… drug courts are not satisfying either the legitimate and compassionate interests of the treatment community or the legitimate and rational interests of the law enforcement community. They are, instead, simply enabling our continued national schizophrenia about drugs.”

    These facts and others like them can be found in the Drug Court Chapter of Drug War Facts at www.drugwarfacts.org.

  • Letter of the Week

    Letter Of The Week

    INSITE: SAVING LIVES IN VANCOUVER

    Re: Injection Site Cuts Fatal Overdoses By 35, April 18.

    I am a doctor at Vancouver’s safe injection site, Insite, and I would
    like to address some misinformation about it. No one who works in
    harm reduction thinks that it is a replacement for rehab or other
    medical treatment. Harm reduction and treatment facilities work in
    harmony to increase outreach to this vulnerable population and to
    facilitate care. There is a role for both models of health-care delivery.

    The injection site is a place for people to have a welcoming
    interaction with the health-care system. Nurses patch wounds and give
    vaccinations and the social workers help people find housing. For
    some of our patients, this is their only place to access running
    water, and only time that they are safe from sexual assault.

    I work on the second floor, which is an in-patient medical detox.
    Patients who use the site and are interested in recovery are admitted
    for a 10-to 14 day stay in our unit under supervision of doctors and
    nurses. After they finish their detox, patients can live in our
    transition housing while they wait to move to a treatment centre.

    I work in this field because I believe that addiction is an illness
    that is both treatable and curable. If rehab is the cure for
    addiction, why not ensure that people don’t die while they are
    waiting for a treatment bed? If the federal government closes our
    clinic, that will support the spread of HIV, increase hospital
    admissions for endocarditis and condemn people to death.

    Dr. Christy Sutherland, Vancouver

    Pubdate: Thu, 21 Apr 2011

    Source: National Post (Canada)

    Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v11/n000/a015.html

  • Letter Writer of the Month

    Letter Of The Week

    SOME DON’T UNDERSTAND NEEDS OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENTS

    Today is a very sad day. As a medical marijuana caregiver, it is
    always sad to read in the obituaries that one of your patients has
    died from the debilitating effects of cancer.

    I watched her struggle with her disease for the better part of a
    year. She never complained or showed any sign of ill will toward
    anyone. She never complained even when she was so weak that she
    could barely walk into our store to purchase the cannabis that
    allowed her to combat the constant nausea that she suffered
    throughout her illness. She never complained when she read almost
    daily in The Billings Gazette that she was being demonized and
    accused of criminal behavior. She never spoke an ill word against
    those who call themselves “Christians” and systematically try to
    repeal the law that allowed her to medicate with cannabis. She
    gracefully endured the insulting accusations by the group “Safe
    Community, Safe Kids,” who constantly insinuated that her medical
    cannabis was somehow harming schoolchildren. This gentle spirit has
    gone to a place where she will be judged for her valor and her inner beauty.

    It is ironic that in the very same Gazette in which her obituary
    appeared, a member of Safe Community, Safe Kids has printed an appeal
    to call the governor and urge him to sign the medical marijuana
    repeal bill. I am guessing there is a special set of rules for
    judging people who are so intolerant, judgmental, uncompassionate and
    quick to condemn other members of our community. I hope to witness
    the event when those rules are applied.

    William Reid

    Billings

    Pubdate: Sat, 16 Apr 2011

    Source: Billings Gazette, The (MT)

    Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v11.n241.a03.html

  • Cannabis & Hemp - Hot Off The 'Net - International

    Legalizing Marijuana: An Exit Strategy from the War on Drugs

    by By COHA Research Associate Zoë Amerigian

    • U.S. drug policy needs to be altered; legalization must be subject to serious debate
    • Legalization could eliminate illegal demand for Mexican marijuana and curb drug-related violence
    • Medical dangers of marijuana may be largely exaggerated
    • Economic costs and benefits should be balanced; legalization could reduce financial burden on the U.S.

    Few topics of debate are as stigmatizing and polarizing as the legalization of marijuana. For the majority of the U.S. population, the idea invokes one of two reactions: a firm guffaw at the ridiculousness of it, or a tenacious, almost blind, support of it. Regardless of their stance, most people derive their opinions from personal beliefs and unsubstantiated myth rather than unassailable fact.

    Disinformation on marijuana is rampant and several U.S. presidents have been stubbornly opposed to any serious discussion about marijuana legalization. National interest in the subject is evidenced by the myriad of legalization-related questions directed at the White House, yet President Obama cannot stifle his laughter every time the topic is brought up.

    Secretary of State Clinton brushes off the idea, vaguely dismissing the subject with “[T]here is just too much money in it,”1—the implication of this statement is uncertain—while countless lawmakers simply cite “morality” in disregarding it.

    If the federal government is going to firmly oppose legalization, they must first establish that they have given significant consideration to the idea. Many Latin American nations, including Mexico and Colombia, the greatest victims of the drug trade, have already had serious debate about legalization. It is time for the U.S. to do the same.

  • Drug Policy

    Obama’s Facebook Forum Fails to Silence Marijuana Legalization Advocates

    By Scott Morgan, Associate Editor, StoptheDrugWar.org

    In an apparent effort to prevent marijuana legalization from again dominating the discussion, Obama’s next online townhall event will not allow participants to vote on their favorite questions for the president. But what does that say about the politics of social media? And will it even work?

    It started with a simple and promising idea. The young voters who helped put Obama in office congregate on the Internet, and the best way to keep them involved in the political process is to meet them on their own turf. The incoming Obama Administration planned online forums mimicking the “thumbs up, thumbs down” voting systems that help rank the best content on popular viral sites like YouTube, Reddit and Digg. The President would solicit questions from the public and see what people cared about the most.

  • Cannabis & Hemp - Hot Off The 'Net

    Marijuana Law Reform: What’s Next?

    This week, in observance of 4/20, we’re taking a look at the politics of pot in America. We kicked off yesterday with a quick overview of marijuana law reform efforts over the past twelve months. Today, we check in with a leading legalization advocate, Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the New York-based Drug Policy Alliance, for a take on the path ahead. Below, some highlights from our talk.