-- -- -- -- -- - -- - -- -- - - - ----- -- --- -- - - - ---- - -- - - - -- ---- -- - -- -
Never wear your best trousers when you go out to fight for freedom and truth.
Henrik Ibsen
NEURONAUTIC INSTITUTE on-line: http://home.earthlink.net/~thew
Subject: UK Cannabis Cafes Set To Open All Around Britain As Law
http://www.mapinc.org/norml/v02/n486/a02.htm
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncmenu.htm
http://www.athoc.com/wis/activate/defau
http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,50820,00.html
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/228.html
Published on Thursday, February 21, 2002 by Common Dreams
Drug War Madness: The Supreme Court is Unmoved
by Paul Waldman
?
Just how absurd is America's war on drugs? Consider the case of Barbara Hill, about whom the Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday. Hill, a 63-year old grandmother, has been living in Oakland public housing for the last thirty years. No one ever suggested that she uses drugs or condones the use of drugs. But in November 1997, Oakland Housing Authority officers caught her grandson in the parking lot of the apartment complex, standing next to someone who had a joint. When they questioned him, Hill's grandson admitted that he too had smoked marijuana. Although they never suggested that Hill had any knowledge of or involvement in any drug crime, and her grandson had never been arrested before, the OHA then evicted Barbara Hill from her apartment. This Kafkaesque series of events is repeated over and over in public housing facilities across America - law-abiding people tossed out of their homes because a relative or friend committed a minor drug violation of which the tenant had no knowledge. It would almost be laughable if we weren't talking about real people being victimized.
How can they do this? Department of Housing and Urban Development policy mandates that every resident of public housing sign a lease promising "To assure that tenant, any member of the household, a guest, or another person under the tenant's control, shall not engage in...Any drug-related criminal activity on or near the premises. Any criminal activity in violation of the preceding sentence shall be cause for termination of tenancy, and for eviction from the unit." Among other indignities, public housing residents are routinely submitted to warrantless searches after being told that if they don't allow housing authority officials to ransack their homes looking for drugs, they will be evicted.
But wait, you might say. Barbara Hill and other public housing residents are getting a government benefit, the opportunity to rent apartments at below-market rates with the government making up the difference. Isn't it reasonable that in exchange they be forced to strictly abide by the law and make sure their family members and guests do the same? And if they don't, shouldn't the government exercise its prerogative to no longer provide them with that benefit?
All right, sounds fair enough. In that case, we should certainly apply the law to everyone who gets their housing subsidized by the government. So if you're one of the tens of millions of Americans who owns a home, that means you, too.
According to the IRS, of the 127 million federal income tax returns filed in 2000, approximately 30 million claimed the mortgage interest deduction. For those of you unfamiliar with this piece of taxpayer largesse, in America if you own a home the federal government pays for a significant chuck of the interest on your mortgage, depending on the tax bracket you're in. The mortgage interest deduction is the largest middle-class entitlement in the federal budget, costing well over $60 billion a year. The average homeowner claims a deduction of more than $8,000 each year.
So if we're going to be consistent, we have to make sure that all recipients of government-subsidized housing, and their relatives and guests, strictly abide by drug prohibition laws. Therefore, I modestly propose a number of additions to federal drug laws:
* All recipients of the mortgage interest deduction will be required to permanently waive their Fourth Amendment rights and allow local police to regularly search their homes for drugs.
* If a teenager is caught with marijuana or any other drug, his or her parents will become permanently ineligible for the mortgage interest deduction.
* All of the nation's drug treatment facilities will be visited by federal agents, who will question the patients to determine any and all locations in which they have used or carried drugs, including the homes of parents, friends, and parents of friends. The owners of all of these homes will become permanently ineligible for the mortgage interest deduction.
How do you think that'd go over with the American people?
The housing issue is just one of the many ways in which our war on drugs is in practice a war on poor people. Barbara Hill came home one day to find an eviction notice on her door because her grandson took a puff on a joint. Jeb Bush, on the other hand, was not kicked out of the governor's mansion - for which the citizens of Florida pay in its entirety - even though his daughter was arrested for trying to fraudulently obtain a prescription drug. Governor Bush made an eminently reasonable request, for "the public and media to respect our family's privacy during this difficult time so that we can help our daughter." If I am arrested tomorrow for a drug crime, the American taxpayer will continue to help me pay for my house. Do poor people who do drugs deserve the same privacy and help the Bush family does? According to the federal government - and probably the Supreme Court; reports indicate that Hill's attorney got little sympathy during yesterday's oral arguments - the answer is no.
Paul Waldman is publisher of the Waldman Political Report (http://waldmanreport.com)
TREATING DRUGS WITH DEATH
Goodbye Muddah, Goodbye Faddah
Tough love kills, as the parents of Anthony Haynes found out when their 14-year-old son died last summer in a boot-camp-style drug-treatment program outside of Phoenix, Ariz.
Camp director Charles Long II was busted earlier this month and charged with second-degree murder, according to a Feb. 16 Associated Press story. And if Long were looking for mitigating circumstances to endear him to the authorities, the quarter-pound of pot found in his bedroom closet and the account of his pulling a knife on another camper didn't help matters much.
The medical examiner's verdict was that Haynes "died of complications from dehydration and near-drowning." While those may sound contradictory, tragically they are not.
Voicing his desire to leave the camp, on the day of his death Haynes was forced to eat mud and stand in 116-degree heat "for being a quitter." His stint in the sun was upwards of five hours long. And if that were not sufficient torture, after nearly dying from the heat, Haynes was taken to a motel and dropped in a bathtub to cool off -- that's where he almost drowned.
Other camp staffers were also arrested and charged -- one, according to AP, "for allegedly spanking, stomping, beating and whipping more than 14 children. He also was accused of denying them water or shade in the heat."
Even Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Mr. Tough Love himself, called the America's Buffalo Soldiers
Re-enactors Association-operated camp "organized torture toward children. " The camp was closed the day following Haynes' death.
"There have been at least five other deaths at youth boot camps in the past decade and numerous abuse allegations across the country," said the AP report.
_________________________________
State's untapped pot of gold
DAVID LAZARUS
Friday, March 1, 2002
With the state Legislature's chief budget analyst saying that
California is now $17.5 billion in the red, only two choices exist to
get us out of this fix: deep cuts in spending or finding new
revenue sources.
Perhaps it's time for serious consideration to be given to legalizing
California's biggest cash crop -- marijuana.
I know, I know. Just bringing up the topic is going to set alarm
bells ringing in some quarters. Let's try to contain our emotions
for just a minute and look at this issue from a purely public-policy
and economic perspective.
Pot advocates say it has already been found to have medical
benefits. In 1996, voters statewide approved Proposition 215, the
Compassionate Use Act, legalizing marijuana for medicinal
purposes.
But higher-ups in Washington have since decided that federal
anti-drug laws take precedence over state measures and are thus
cracking down on organizations that seek to make life easier for
people with AIDS, cancer or other ailments.
Beyond the clear medical advantages, though, pot could have an
enormous impact on the struggling California economy, provided
the feds allowed the state to go down that road.
A 1998 report by the National Organization for the Reform of
Marijuana Laws determined that American dope growers earn
more than $15 billion annually on the wholesale market. Only
corn, soybeans and hay are more profitable cash crops.
The annual marijuana crop in California is worth about $4 billion,
the organization found, making it the state's single-most-lucrative
agricultural resource -- more than the production value of grapes
and almonds combined.
Daniel Sumner, an agricultural economist at the University of
California at Davis, noted that a considerable portion of pot's
current cash value lies in its illegal status. Buyers are forced to
subsidize growers' security measures.
Sumner said marijuana's status as the state's largest cash crop
would almost certainly come to an end under legalization as
growing costs fall in line with similar crops, such as tobacco.
As a revenue source, however, he said dope could have a profound
impact on state coffers. Like tobacco, legalized marijuana could be
expected to be sold retail with hefty taxes attached.
Sumner speculated that as much as a 1,000 percent tax on
marijuana might be levied to keep retail costs sufficiently high and
thus deter use by minors.
"It makes more sense to tax things than to ban them," he said.
"You generate revenue and you give people an incentive to behave
the way we want."
Sheri Larsen, a spokeswoman for the California Board of
Equalization, said that if an 8 percent sales tax were levied on a $4
billion marijuana crop, the state would take in an extra $317
million a year.
But that number is only a fraction of the revenue that would be
expected if Sumner is correct about a whopping dope tax. The
87-cents-per-pack tax on cigarettes, for example, produced $1.1
billion in revenue for California last year.
If the almost 53 percent tax now levied on cigars and other tobacco
products were applied to a $4 billion marijuana crop, this would
result in $2. 1 billion in revenue.
Of course, no law or tax by itself is going to keep kids from
experimenting with forbidden fruit. Researchers at Columbia
University reported last week that teenagers now account for about
a quarter of all alcohol consumed in the United States.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
says marijuana use by teens has leveled off. About 15 percent of
eighth-graders, 33 percent of 10th-graders and 37 percent of
12th-graders tried pot last year, the department found.
Yet those who argue that keeping marijuana illegal keeps it out of
the hands of youngsters should look at the health department's
statistics for cigarette use.
About 12 percent of eighth-graders, 21 percent of 10th-graders
and nearly 30 percent of 12th-graders smoked cigarettes last year
-- almost identical levels as marijuana use.
Kind of makes you wonder if teens would smoke even less dope if
some of the mystique of the drug were stripped away by
decriminalization.
As for adults, a nationwide poll in December by Zogby
International found that in light of post-Sept. 11 security concerns,
61 percent oppose arresting and jailing nonviolent marijuana
smokers.
It is, of course, a stretch to think that lawmakers, either at the state
or federal level, would risk their political necks on an issue like
this. You can just imagine how they'd get pounded by
conservatives.
Robert MacCoun, a professor of public policy and law at the
University of California at Berkeley, spent 10 years studying
worldwide drug policies. He concluded in the book "Drug War
Heresies" (co-authored with economist Peter Reuter) that
removing penalties for marijuana does not lead to increased use.
The only way use of legalized pot would significantly increase,
MacCoun told me, would be if dope smoking was aggressively
promoted by profit-hungry corporations, a la the tobacco industry.
If advertising could be restricted, he said, "it's hard to show social
harm from widespread marijuana use."
Me, I'm kind of conflicted. I don't do drugs anymore -- haven't for
many years -- but I did smoke pot back in college, and must say I
enjoyed it quite a bit.
I never regarded dope as anywhere near as harmful or dangerous
as alcohol or cigarettes, and certainly nowhere in the same league
as harder drugs.
It's only a matter of time, though, before my young son confronts
the temptations of the world, and I have to be honest when I say I'd
prefer he didn't mess with any mood-altering substances. I'm not
yet sure what I'm going to tell him.
But I do agree with UC Davis' Sumner that taxation and regulation
are far more effective tools than prohibition in keeping people
from indulging in vices.
Keeping marijuana illegal just doesn't make sense. And for a state
that grows tons of it, and which can't pay its bills, legalization
might at last be a very smart move indeed.
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
Drop The Rock
The Campaign to Repeal the Rockefeller Drug Laws
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are the Rockefeller Drug Laws?
* The Rockefeller Drug Laws were enacted in 1973 under then Governor Nelson Rockefeller.? They require long prison terms-up to 15 years to life-for the possession or sale of small amounts of drugs.
* The penalties apply without regard to the circumstances of the offense or the individual's character or background.? Whether the person is a first-time or repeat offender, for instance, is irrelevant.
The drug laws drive prison expansion, fill prisons with non-violent, minor offenders, and drain resources from other services, such as drug treatment and education.?
There are currently over 21,000 drug offenders in NYS prisons.
It cost the state about $2 billion to build new prisons to house drug offenders.? The annual operating expense for confining them comes to nearly $700 million per year.
* From 1988 to 1998, the state increased annual prison spending by $761 million and decreased annual spending on the State and City Universities of NY by approximately $615 million.
The drug laws skew law enforcement efforts.
* Guilt under the drug laws is determined by the amount of drugs in the offenders’ possession at the time of arrest, not by their role in the drug transaction.
* This provision creates an incentive for law enforcement to concentrate on poor communities of color where most drug transactions take place on the street and minor dealers and users are more easily arrested.?
* Police generally ignore middle and upper-class areas where the majority of people buy and use drugs behind closed doors.
The drug laws are a form of institutionalized racism.
* Studies show that the majority of people who use and sell drugs are white, yet African-Americans and Latinos make up about 94% of the drug offenders in NYS prisons.
* Since 1982, NY has opened 38 prisons, all in upstate areas represented by Republican State Senators.?
* Prisons in Republican senate districts receive more than $1.1 billion annually to cover their operating expenses and employ almost 30,000 people.
* 93% of NYS inmates are housed in prisons located in Republican senate districts.
* Nearly 65% of NY State prisoners are from NY City—almost all from a handful of poor communities of color.? 2/3 of NY’s prisons are located more than 3 hours by car from NYC, cutting many inmates off from family and community ties.
Drop the Rock c/o The Criminal Justice Alliance135 E. 15th St, New York, NY 10003 Tel. (212) 254-5700 Fax (212) 473-2807 www.droptherock.org
* The US Census Bureau records inmates as residents of the area where the prison that confines them is located, not as residents of the community they come from, where their families still reside.
* NY has transferred thousands of people from its inner cities to upstate areas and, along with them, the government funding and electoral influence that are based on district population.? Moreover, inmates and parolees cannot vote.
In conjunction with NYS laws that deny felony offenders the right to vote (felon disenfranchisement laws), the drug laws drain political power and resources from poor communities of color.
?Because poor NYC communities of color have disproportionately high rates of drug??arrests and convictions largely due to the drug laws they are is proportionately stripped of voting power.????
* Felon disenfranchisement laws were part of a series of Jim Crow policies that were first adopted in the South during the late 19th Century.? Others included literacy tests, poll taxes, and grandfather clauses, all designed to keep African-Americans from voting.
* Criminal disenfranchisement was the most indirect way to deny the vote to African Americans, and is the only Jim Crow practice that survives today.
Alternatives to incarceration are available that would help cut crime, save money and
rebuild lives, families, and communities.?
* Studies show that treatment is more successful than prison in fighting drug abuse, reducing recidivism rates, and preparing participants for stable and productive lives in the community.?
* The cost of keeping an inmate in NYS prison for a year is about $32,000.? In comparison, the cost of most outpatient drug treatment care runs between $2,700-4,500 per person per year and the cost of residential treatment is $17,000-$21,000 per person per year.
The Drop the Rock campaign promotes drug law REPEAL.?
Assemblymember Jeffrion Aubry, Chair of the Committee on Corrections, has introduced a Repeal Bill (A-2823) that, if passed, would accomplish 4 essential objectives:
1. Restore sentencing discretion to trial judges in all drug cases.
2. Make reform retroactive so that current inmates incarcerated under the drug laws can petition the courts for review of their sentences.
3. Expand the funding for alternatives to incarceration, including drug treatment, job training and education so that judges have an appropriate place to send the offenders? they decide should not be imprisoned.
4. Significantly reduce sentence lengths for drug offenses.
Drop the Rockalso promotes a fundamental shift in government priorities.
Prisons have proven to be an ineffective intervention into the cycle of drug abuse and crime associated with the drug trade.? Conversely, drug treatment, livable-wage employment, good education, and adequate, affordable housing and healthcare are successful ways to rebuild families, reconstruct communities and address the problems caused by drug abuse and drug-related crime and violence.
??How can you help repeal the Rockefeller Drug Laws??
Join the Drop the Rock Campaign and become a Drop the Rock Voter:?
* Register to vote.
* Fill out a Drop the Rock Voter Pledge Form.
* To find out other ways to get involved, call (212) 254-5700 x306 or visit www.droptherock.org
___________
------ End of Forwarded Message
<<< message/external-body; name="UK Cannabis Cafes Set To Open All Around Britain As Law.url";x-mac-creator="41726368";x-mac-type="4155524C": Unrecognized >>>
