During his ABC "town hall" last night, responding to a question from moderator George Stephanopoulos, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden agreed that it was a "mistake" to "support" the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. At the same time, he defended parts of the law, including the Violence Against Women Act, funding to support "community policing" by hiring more officers, and the now-expired federal ban on "assault weapons." He also implied that the real problem was not so much the law itself but the way that states responded to it. "The mistake came in terms of what the states did locally," he said.

Both the question and the answer were highly misleading. First, Biden did not merely "support" the 1994 law; hewrote the damned thing, which he has proudly called "the 1994 Biden Crime Bill." Second, as much as Biden might like to disavow the law's penalty enhancements now that public opinion on criminal justice has shifted, he was proud of them at the time. Third, the 1994 crime bill is just one piece of legislation in Biden's long history of supporting mindlessly punitive responses to drugs and crime.

Biden is trying to gloss over a major theme of his political career. "Every major crime bill since 1976 that's come out of this Congressevery minor crime billhas had the name of the Democratic senator from Delaware, Joe Biden," he bragged in 1993. Now he wants us to believe his agenda was limited to domestic violence, community policing, and gun control.

"Things have changed drastically" since 1994, Biden said last night, noting that "the Black Caucus voted" for the crime bill, and "every black mayor supported it." In other words, now that black politicians and Democrats generally have rejected the idea that criminal penalties can never be too severe, Biden has shifted with the winds of opinion. But as Sen. Cory Booker (DN.J.) noted during a Democratic presidential debate last year, that does not mean we should forget Biden's leading role in the disastrous war on drugs and the draconian criminal justice policies that put more and more people in cages for longer and longer periods of time.

"The crime bill itself did not have mandatory sentences except for two things," Biden said. He mentioned the law's "three strikes and you're out" provision, which required a life sentence for anyone convicted of a violent crime after committing two other felonies, one of which can be a drug offense. He said he "voted against" that provision, which is not exactly true. While he did express concern that the provision was not focused narrowly enough on serious violent crimes, he voted for it as part of the broader bill.

In any case, Biden did not just go along with the crime bill's punitive provisions; he crowed about them. Like a crass car salesman hawking a new model with more of everything, he touted "70 additional enhancements of penalties" and "60 new death penaltiesbrand new60." He denounced as "poppycock" the notion, which would later be defensively deployed by Bill Clinton and Biden himself, that "somehow the Republicans tried to make the crime bill tougher." Biden bragged that he had conferred with "the cops" instead of some namby-pamby "liberal confab" while writing the bill.

As for "what the states did locally," the law was designed to increase incarceration. It provided $10 billion in subsidies for state prison construction, contingent on passage of "truth in sentencing" laws that limited or abolished parole. "What I was against was giving states more money for prison systems," Biden said last night. But that is simply not true. As FactCheck.org noted last year, "Biden did support $6 billion in funding for state prison construction, but not the $10 billion that was part of the final bill."

Despite Biden's implication that he was not a fan of mandatory minimums, he zealously supported them in previous legislation, including the AntiDrug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988. The latter law included a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for anyone caught with five grams of crack cocaine, whether or not he was involved in distribution.

As Biden explained it on the Senate floor in 1991 while holding up a quarter, "we said crack cocaine is such a bad deal that if you find someone with this much of ita quarter's worth, not in value, but in sizefive years in jail." To be clear: Biden was not marveling at the blatant injustice of that punishment. He was touting his anti-drug bona fides.

Biden also supported a sentencing policy that treated crack cocaine as if it were 100 times worse than cocaine powder, even though these are simply two different ways of consuming the same drug. Under the 1986 law, possessing five grams of crack with intent to distribute it triggered the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence as 500 grams of cocaine powder; likewise, the 10-year mandatory minimum required five kilograms of cocaine powder but only 50 grams of crack.

Because federal crack offenders were overwhelmingly black, while cocaine powder offenders were more likely to be white or Hispanic, the rule Biden supported meant that darker-skinned defendants received substantially heavier penalties than lighter-skinned defendants for essentially the same offenses. "We may not have gotten it right," Biden conceded 16 years after he helped establish the 100-to-1 rule. Five years later, during an unsuccessful bid for his party's 2008 presidential nomination, he introduced a bill that would have equalized crack and cocaine powder sentences.

The distinction between smoked and snorted cocaine "was a big mistake when it was made," Biden admitted in a speech he gave just before entering the presidential race in 2019, nine years after Congress approved a law that shrank but did not eliminate the sentencing gap. "We thought we were told by the experts that crackwas somehow fundamentally different. It's not different." The misconception, he added, "trapped an entire generation."

These are just a few examples of Biden's enthusiasm for coming down hard on people who dare to defy the government's arbitrary pharmacological decrees. You can read more about that here.

Nowadays, Biden opposes the mandatory minimums and death penalties he championed for decades. But his current position still reflects his commitment to using force against people engaged in peaceful conduct that violates no one's rights.

"I don't believe anybody should be going to jail for drug use," Biden said last night. "They should be going into mandatory rehabilitation. We should be building rehab centers to have these people housed."

While Biden considers that approach enlightened and humane, there is no moral justification for foisting "treatment" on people who do not want it and may not even be addicted. That policy strips people of their liberty, dignity, and moral agency simply because they consume psychoactive substances that politicians do not like. Biden, who in the late 1980s was saying "we have to hold every drug user accountable," now wants to lock drug users in "rehab centers" rather than prisons. If that looks like an improvement, it is only because Biden's prior record is so appalling.

See the original post:

Biden Tries To Gloss Over His Long History of Supporting the Drug War and Draconian Criminal Penalties - Reason

Gen. Cienfuegos, right, visiting the National Defense University at Fort McNair, Washington, 2013 (U.S. Army)

By The Maritime Executive 10-19-2020 05:28:24

Mexico's former secretary of defense has been arrested in Los Angeles and charged with using his official post to assist the little-known H-2 Cartel with smuggling, including acting as a maritime shipping agent for narcotics.

The defendant, Gen. Salvador Cienfuegos Zepeda, was Mexico's defense secretary from 2012-2018. Federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York contend that Cienfuegos accepted bribes from the H-2 Cartel in exchange for a broad range of services, including "locating maritime transportation for drug shipments."

Cienfuegos also allegedly provided high-level cover, ensuring that no Mexican military operations were launched against H-2, using the military to target H-2's rivals, helping H-2 to expand its territory in Sinaloa and giving the cartel inside intelligence about American investigations into its activities. This intelligence included information about a suspected mole, and it "ultimately resulted in the murder of a member of the H-2 Cartel that the [cartel's] senior leadership incorrectly believed was assisting U.S. law enforcement authorities," prosecutors alleged.

H-2 was a remnant of the larger and better-known Beltran-Leyva Organization (BLO). The leader of H-2,Juan Francisco Patron Sanchez, was killed in a Mexican Navyraid involving ahelicopter gunshipin 2017;the cartel is now believed to be substantially defunct, like BLO.

"Due in part to the defendants corrupt assistance, the H-2 Cartelconducted its criminal activity in Mexico without significant interference from the Mexican military and imported thousands of kilograms of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana into the United States," asserted acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District Seth D. DuCharme.

American investigators based their charges against Cienfuegos on a trove of thousands of Blackberry messages that allegedly contain conversations with members of the cartel. The discussions include evidence regarding other high-level Mexican officials that Cienfuegos allegedly put into contact with H-2's leaders.

The arrest raises significant questions about the integrity of Mexico's armed services, which are seen within the country as the least corrupt and most effective national institutions. Given the challenges facing Mexico'scivilian agencies, President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has leaned heavily on the military to pursue his agenda, putting military engineers in charge of building a new airport for Mexico City, leaving the army in charge of the long-running war on drugs, and even proposing to transfer control of the nation's major seaports to military leaders.

Original post:

Mexico's Ex-Defense Secretary Charged With Helping Cartel Ship Drugs - The Maritime Executive

Almost 50 years ago, the so-called war on drugs nearly destroyed marginalized communities in the United States.

When President Nixon declared the war in 1971, it not only further stigmatized certain illegal substances, it also created a deeper tension between Black communities and law enforcement through the increased presence of federal drug control agencies and measures such as mandatory sentencing and no-knock warrants.

Since the inception of these systemically racist policies, Black and brown people in America have faced disproportionately higher incarceration rates for nonviolent drug offenses.

Fast forward to 2020 and we find that there has been some progress in decriminalizing certainsubstances however, racism and unequal treatment under the law are problems that remain unsolved.

Yahoo Life spoke with some power players in the cannabis industry who are working to dismantle oppressive systems meant to incarcerate people of color and prohibit them from finding success in what is now a multibillion-dollar industry.

Alex Todd, Saucey Farms & Extracts co-founder; Jim Jones, hip-hop artist and Saucey Farms & Extracts co-founder; Jessica Jackson, chief advocacy officer of the Reform Alliance; and Cedric Haynes, director of public policy and partnerships for Weedmaps sat down with Yahoo Life to discuss how to reform the cannabis industry.

Watch the full video above to learn about their efforts.

Video produced by Kelly Matousek.

Read more from Yahoo Life

Want lifestyle and wellness news delivered to your inbox? Sign up here for Yahoo Lifes newsletter.

Visit link:

How marijuana legalization advocates across the U.S. are fighting to end the war on cannabis - Yahoo Lifestyle

Carry Smith wanted to do her own research on a few local candidates before casting her ballot, but what she found upended the race for District 2 county commissioner.

Smith, a political scientist and former Savannah State University professor, found that Tony Riley, the Democratic candidate for District 2, had a felony conviction on his record which he finished serving time for less than 10 years ago.

Under Georgia law, that disqualifies him as a candidate.

These developments come amid a tumultuous week in the County Commissions District 2 election, after the Board of Elections narrowly voted Oct. 12 to challenge Rileys qualification based on Smiths complaint, submitted the day before. Her research revealed a 1995 felony conviction on his record for conspiracy to distribute cocaine.

Hodge Letter by savannahnow.com

Smith said she believes the public should know who theyre voting for. Thats why she took her findings to Chatham County Board of Elections Chairman Tom Mahoney and Board Member Debbie Rauers around six weeks after she started researching the race.

Additionally, Smith said, if Rileys ineligibility was discovered after the election, it could lead to criminal charges.

"I think it's better to hold somebody accountable before they get elected, and before they take the oath, so it does not disqualify them in the future," Smith said.

Smith says she has endured many contentious conversations with upset Democrats since last week. Smith, who considers herself an Independent, said she didnt expect to be called by name at the Oct. 12 meeting.

"When I submitted that to Mr. Mahoney and Miss Rauers, I had no idea that my name would be brought up in the meeting," Smith said. "But as a political scientist, I think that everyone deserves to be heard."

Riley has vowed to "fight" and alleged he was being "bamboozled" by the board.

"This is the Lord's way of testing my faith," Riley said of his candidacy challenge, while characterizing himself as a victim of the War on Drugs and mass-incarceration policies that he says led to his 1995 drug bust and 16-year sentence. "I accidentally stumbled into it because of an addiction. ... Yes, I have a record. Twenty-five years ago, I made a mistake."

Nonetheless, Riley said that efforts to disqualify him this late in the election cycle are part of an ongoing effort by Republicans to suppress Democratic Black leaders, which he calls "high-tech Jim Crow foolishness."

Smith said she agrees with Riley on the topic of systemic racism and sympathizes with him but that the public still deserves to know the answers to two questions: Did he know he was ineligible, and if so, why did he choose to run anyway?

"I understand how he feels, because there is clear systemic racism going on in the United States. It does happen," Smith said. "Here's the man defending himself, but why does the public still not have answers to these questions?"

Riley and the local Democratic Party appealed and will argue their case to allow the race to go forward at a disqualification hearing set for Oct. 27.

"He has a right to a hearing. He has a right to speak out," Smith said. "That is his constitutional right, his freedom of speech."

Read more:

'The public deserves to know': County Commission complaint against Tony Riley was filed after six weeks of research - Savannah Morning News

A customer lights a joint at Lowell Farms, America's first official Cannabis Cafe offering farm-to-table dining and smoking of cannabis in West Hollywood, California, October 1, 2019.

Mike Blake | Reuters

New Jersey is expected to approve a ballot initiative to legalize adult-use (aka recreational) marijuana on Election Day next month. Aside from stoking up the 61% of likely Garden State voters in favor of the measure, its passage is projected to generate up to $400 million in adult-use sales in its first year and $950 million by 2024, translating then to nearly $63 million in annual state tax revenue and an additional $19 million in local taxes, as estimated by Marijuana Business Daily. In an economy shattered by the coronavirus pandemic, legal weed looks like a great idea.

That may not be the only good news for legalization proponents after Nov. 3. They're hoping New Jersey's pro-pot vote will trigger a domino effect in neighboring states considering similar efforts. "Once New Jersey goes, it's going to set off an arms race along the East Coast, putting New York, Connecticut and Pennsylvania on the clock," said DeVaughn Ward, senior legislative counsel for the Marijuana Policy Project, a cannabis advocacy group in Hartford.

Those three states already permit medicinal marijuana sales and have been moving toward legalizing adult-use for several years, considering tax revenue, job creation and the will of the majority of residents in favor of full legalization. The legislative stars appeared aligned following the 2018 midterm elections' blue wave, yet ultimately there weren't enough yea votes in the respective state houses last year. Then the pandemic hit in March, keeping legalization bills in lockdown until next year.

Three additional states Arizona, South Dakota and Montana have adult-use legalization initiatives on their November ballots, and Mississippians will vote on a bill allowing medicinal sales. If all five measures pass, medicinal marijuana will be legal in 38 states, as well as Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, and adult-use in 14 of those, plus D.C.

Legalization is another leg on the long, strange trip the U.S. cannabis industry is experiencing in the Year of Covid. Marijuana sales have gone up during the pandemic, thanks to stay-at-home orders and federal stimulus money. And the prospects for continued growth are high.

Total cannabis sales in the U.S. this year are projected to reach $15.8 billion, according to Arcview Market Research/BDSA, up from $12.1 billion in 2019. In adult-use states, the numbers are eye-popping. Illinois, for instance, recently reported its fifth straight month of record-breaking marijuana sales, which hit $67 million in September. Oregon has seen adult-use sales rise 30% above forecast since the pandemic began, averaging $100 million a month over the summer.

"As a whole, the industry is doing fairly well," said Chris Walsh, CEO of Marijuana Business Daily. "Some companies have struggled, but in general we haven't seen an overwhelming number of layoffs or companies going out of business." A big boost, he added, was that most states deemed cannabis businesses as essential during the pandemic. "They were able to stay open while the economy virtually came to a grinding halt," Walsh said.

A customer holding a cannabis product gestures while leaving the Natural Vibe store after legal recreational marijuana went on sale in St John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada October 17, 2018.

Chris Wattie | Reuters

Even so, because marijuana remains illegal on the federal level, the industry was ineligible for funds distributed through the Small Business Administration's Paycheck Protection Program. "It's just another irony on top of irony about how the country handles cannabis in general," Walsh said. House Democrats have included the industry in previous and proposed Covid stimulus packages, but to no avail.

Depending on the outcome of next month's presidential and Congressional elections, the likelihood of full federal legalization which means removing it from its highly restrictive Schedule I drug classification under the Controlled Substances Act could be greater than ever. What's more, there's a good chance that the rampant injustices inflicted during the nation's nearly century-old cannabis prohibition, disproportionately upon people of color, may be overcome.

The Trump administration has had an enigmatic relationship with cannabis. It rescinded an Obama-era policy that prevented federal prosecutions for marijuana offenses and made immigrants ineligible for citizenship if they consume marijuana or work in the cannabis industry. Yet Trump has previously favored states' rights to legalize pot and signed the 2018 Farm Bill that legalized hemp, its non-intoxicating variety. He's running for reelection on a law-and-order platform and has never promoted federal legalization, so even if Congress turns solid blue, it's hard to predict where he might come down on the issue.

Trump's Democratic opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden, has a complicated history with cannabis, too. As a senator, he championed the 1994 crime bill that sent tens of thousands of minor drug offenders to prison. Yet while serving as Obama's vice president, the administration issued the Cole memo, which cleared the way for state-legal marijuana businesses to operate largely without federal interference. Biden and running mate Senator Kamala Harris support adult-use marijuana decriminalization, moderate rescheduling, federal medicinal legalization, allowing states to set their own laws and expunging prior cannabis convictions though not federal legalization.

Harris and Rep. Jerry Nadler were co-sponsors last year of the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, which would remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act and eliminate criminal penalties under federal law. The MORE Act also would expedite expungements, impose a 5% tax on cannabis products to fund criminal and social reforms and prohibit the denial of any federal public benefits based on marijuana use. Congress was scheduled to vote on the bill in September, but it was delayed, probably until next year.

Alongside tax revenue and job creation, social justice reform is the strongest argument for legalization, on both the federal and state levels. Dating back to the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, criminalization and incarceration, especially of minorities, have been foundational to drug laws. "The war on drugs has historically and continues to disproportionately target communities of color," said David Abernathy, vice president of research and consulting for Arcview Group, an Oakland-based firm that matches cannabis businesses and investors, who also is on the board of the Minority Cannabis Business Association.

While decriminalization and expungement are paramount to legalization, providing business opportunities for minorities in legal cannabis is equally vital, Abernathy said. "It's harder for communities of color to participate in the industry as it gets better capitalized and folks from other industries move into it with their connections," he said. That's why there's been pushback in some state initiatives that disqualify individuals with drug convictions from working with cannabis.

On the investment side of the equation, Abernathy noted that even before Covid, there was a significantly slower capital market than in recent years. But with the industry's uptick during the pandemic, for some investors it's been "a good place to put money in this volatile time," he said. Next year, especially if legalization initiatives pass, "we expect this growth trend to continue."

Another positive trend is the increasing sophistication of cannabis businesses, with publicly-traded companies such as Tilray, Cronos Group, Aurora Cannabis, GW Pharmaceuticals and Canopy Growth as prime examples. They are among start-ups involved in medicinals, CBDs, edibles, vaping and smokable products, as well as cannabis cultivation and distribution, where allowed in the U.S. and other countries. If and when marijuana becomes federally legal in the U.S., those endemic players are likely to be joined by conventional food, beverage, tobacco and other consumer product companies that for years have been anticipating a multi-billion-dollar global cannabis market.

Additionally, the industry has the potential for significant job growth, said Aaron Smith, executive director of the National Cannabis Industry Association in Washington. There are already nearly 244,000 people working full-time in legal cannabis, according to a report by Leafly earlier this year, "but with new states coming on board and [possible] federal legalization, that could turn into tens of millions of jobs," Smith said. "Given the state of the economy, policy makers and voters ought to look to this industry for its economic potential."

Read more here:

The cannabis industry could be a big winner on Election Day - CNBC

No matter where on the political spectrum they fall, most Oregonians agree that the state is going through an addiction crisis.

According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, about one in 10 Oregonians over the age of 18 had substance use disorder in 2018 the fourth-highest rate in the nation. Last year, nearly 600 people died of drug overdoses in the state.

Research beginning in the 1970s suggested that criminalizing addiction might deter people from ever trying drugs, but that theory is being called into question in light of substance use rates that have largely worsened since the War on Drugs era began. The petitioners of Measure 110 on this years ballot believe theres a better approach to fight addiction: treat it as a health crisis instead.

The measure would create a new system for handling addiction that would divert low-level drug offenders away from incarceration and toward addiction treatment. Instead of arresting and charging someone caught with a small amount of an illegal substance, law enforcement would give them a $100 fine that could be waived if they seek treatment. Called a civil violation, the infraction is similar to a speeding or parking ticket. Possession of a larger amount of drugs would be considered a misdemeanor and more serious drug-related crimes, like producing or dealing substances, would remain felonies.

Proponents of the measure say decriminalizing addiction will help reduce the stigma associated with treatment and save people from having their criminal records permanently marred by low-level drug charges that can prevent them from getting jobs or housing.

The American Psychological Society considers addiction a mental illness, and Measure 110s authors believe that illness should be treated, not criminalized. If it passes, Oregon would be the first state in the U.S. to decriminalize drug use.

Drug addiction treatment is more effective than criminal records that ruin peoples lives, said Peter Zuckerman, campaign manager for Yes on 110.

The campaign points to Portugal, which decriminalized drug use and invested in measures that would help people use drugs more safely and created a widespread treatment program to fight addiction. After ending an expensive, decades-long law enforcement crackdown similar to the U.S.s War on Drugs, the number of people seeking treatment in the country increased by more than 60% between 1998 and 2011. And unlike incarceration, a health-based approach is more likely to actually heal those struggling with addiction.

The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission estimates that Measure 110 would result in around 90% fewer drug possession-related charges.

In addition to decriminalizing drug use, Measure 110 would direct funding to treatment services throughout the state. It would start by designating 16 addiction recovery centers, at least one in each Coordinated Care Organization, as go-to points for people struggling with addiction. The centers wouldnt provide long-term treatment but would instead focus on health assessments, triage, peer support and connecting people to treatment. The measure would also provide grants to existing organizations that provide addiction treatment and harm reduction services.

All that money will come from two sources. First are the funds the justice system could save from not having to arrest, adjudicate and incarcerate people committing low-level drug crimes. That exact amount will be determined after decriminalization goes into effect, but is estimated to be between $12 million and $59.3 million per year, according to estimates made by Oregons Secretary of State and financial consulting firm ECONorthwest.

The second pot is a reallocation of marijuana tax revenue that exceeds $45 million per year. When marijuana was legalized, the state estimated that tax revenues would only reach $40 million, but last year sales brought in more than $102 million. Measure 110 would basically allocate the difference to addiction recovery services through the Oregon Health Authority.

The measure also establishes an oversight and accountability council made up of physicians, addiction survivors, social workers and various addiction treatment service providers that will determine funding distribution. Audits will occur at least every two years to assess the measures finances and performance. Because the current system is managed by law enforcement with little to no oversight, addiction treatment outcomes are unknown.

Measure 110 has endorsements from more than 100 organizations concerned with addiction recovery, public safety and social justice, including the American College of Physicians Oregon Chapter, the Oregon School Psychologists Association, the Mental Health and Addiction Association of Oregon, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Coalition of Communities of Color.

Oregon Recovers, an addiction recovery advocacy group, and the Oregon Council for Behavioral Health, which focuses on mental health and substance use treatment, oppose the measure. While they agree that addiction should be decriminalized, they expressed concerns with the measures funding re-allocation and its possible impacts on minors. In an op-ed in The Oregonian, leaders of both organizations said the measure will take away $56 million from addiction treatment and prevention and $90 million from schools over the next several years because of the marijuana tax revenue adjustments.

While thats true, Zuckerman said the lost addiction treatment funding would ultimately be used for the same purposes through the measure, and the approximately $9 billion school budget is fully funded for at least the next year from other sources.

Where schools get money from will be adjusted, Zuckerman said.

Finally, The Oregonian op-ed stated that the measures text doesnt require the creation of any actual treatment services. Zuckerman said thats a misunderstanding of the text, which doesnt necessarily create any new facilities but instead provides more grant funding to existing organizations that operate such facilities.

BestCare, which operates an addiction treatment facility in Klamath Falls, cant take a position on the measure, but Rick Treleaven, its CEO, said hes concerned the language doesnt go far enough to fund an expansion of the states treatment capacity.

While I believe that the sponsors of 110 have their heart in the right place, a close reading of the measure suggests it may not deliver what it intends, Treleaven said.

Zuckerman said the ambiguity in how much funding goes to treatment versus the addiction recovery centers exists because a one-size fits all approach is ineffective with treatment. Because different areas of the state may have different needs, the oversight council will benefit from the fundings flexibility and will have the authority to direct grants to where theyre most needed in each of Oregons communities.

Dr. Ralph Eccles, a retired physician in Klamath Falls, said while he agrees that Measure 110 has some shortcomings, its a far better approach to Oregons addiction crisis than the current model of criminalization.

If we dont pass this, weve got the status quo, which means the person picked up with six ounces of pot can still be processed as a felon, Eccles said. Wouldnt it be better to process that person as an addiction problem?

See more here:

Measure 110 would replace drug criminalization with treatment - Herald and News

The War on Drugs shared a searing live rendition of Pain, from their upcoming album, Live Drugs, out November 20th via frontman Adam Granduciels own Super High Quality Records.

The live version of Pain which originally appeared on 2017s A Deeper Understanding exchanges some of the slick studio polish for a bit of immediacy, best captured in the crackling guitar solo and Granduciels clenched-fist vocals: Ive been pulling on a wire, but it just wont break, he sings, Ive been turning up the dial, but I hear no sound/I resist what I cannot change/And I wanna find what cant be found.

Rather than capturing a sole concert, Live Drugs features cuts pulled from over 40 hard drives of recorded War on Drugs shows from across the years. Per a press release, its sequenced to reflect a typical War on Drugs set, while also capturing the way the band has evolved over the years. Along with selections from the War on Drugs four studio albums, Live Drugs will feature a cover of Warren Zevons Accidentally Like a Martyr.

As a band leader, I always want to know where a song can go, Granduciel said in a statement. Even though weve recorded it, mastered it, put it out, and been touring on it, it doesnt mean that we just have to do it the same way forever It feels like its kind of a reset, to be able to put something out thats a really good interpretation of the way we interpret our music live. Even though this recording is from a year of tours, this is really how these six guys evolved as a band from 2014 to 2019.

The press release also noted that War on Drugs are at work on the follow-up to A Deeper Understanding. In August, the band remixed the Rolling Stones Scarlet for the bands Goats Head Soup reissue.

Live DrugsTracklist

1. An Ocean Between the Waves2. Pain3. Strangest Thing4. Red Eyes5. Thinking of a Place6. Buenos Aires Beach7. Accidentally Like a Martyr8. Eyes to the Wind9. Under the Pressure10. In Reverse

Go here to see the original:

War on Drugs Preview New Live Album With Gripping Rendition of Pain - Rolling Stone

Three years removed from their last studio album, 2017's Grammy-winning 'A Deeper Understanding', The War On Drugs next record will showcase the band's live chops.

'Live Drugs' is a collection of live renditions the group have collated from more than 40 hard drives across years of touring and multiple releases.

Sequenced to reflect how a typical 70-minute show would flow, the first taste of 'Live Drugs' is 'Pain' from the aforementioned 'A Deeper Understanding'.

"As a band leader, I always want to know where a song can go," Adam Granduciel explains.

"Even though we've recorded it, mastered it, put it out, and been touring on it, it doesn't mean that we just have to do it the same way forever.

"It feels like it's kind of a reset, to be able to put something out that's a really good interpretation of the way we interpret our music live.

"Even though this recording is from a year of tours, this is really how these six guys evolved as a band from 2014 to 2019."

The band have also spent the past six months working on their next studio album.

'Live Drugs' is released on 20 November, 2020. Pre-order it.

Visit link:

The War On Drugs New Album Highlights Their Live Chops - scenestr

[imagesource: Omar Torres / AFP / Getty Images]

Chances are you recognise that bloke above.

Yes, thats Joaqun El Chapo Guzmn, the one-time leader of the infamous Sinaloa Cartel, who will now spend the rest of his life in a maximum-security prison referred to as the Alcatraz of the Rockies.

Arresting baddies is a good thing, but there are repercussions to removing the kingpin atop a massive crime operation.

For the residents ofCuliacn, a city of about 800 000 in northwestern Mexico, its been a rocky few years. The city serves as the headquarters of the Sinaloa Cartel, and the last few months have been more violent than ever.

In a recent segment for VICEs The War on Drugs series, the strategy of kingpin removal is under the spotlight:

Any attempt to shut down the trade in drugs such as heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, ketamine or weed invariably sets off a chain of events that just makes things worse, leaving a trail of death, illness, violence, slavery, addiction, crime and inequality across the globe. Everyone loses except, in a weird kind of way, the drugs themselves.

For decades, this war has been defined by the kingpin strategy the idea that you can take out a trafficking gang by killing or imprisoning the boss. The reality? This approach almost invariably leads to more misery and bloodshed, as rival gangs battle it out to fill the power vacuum and an already-volatile drugs trade is plunged deeper into chaos.

As you will see below, its really not as simple as chopping off the head:

[source:vice]

Read the original here:

When Taking Out The Kingpin Backfires In The War On Drugs [Video] - 2oceansvibe News

Published October 5, 2020 | By Kristen Nichols

The legacy of systemic racism and the war on drugs is playing out in todays hemp industry, which remains dominated by white landowners and people with access to large amounts of capital.

The National Hemp Association recently launched a new effort to change that. The groups Standing Committee on Social Equity has gathered business leaders of color in the hemp sector and charged them with finding ways to bring more diversity and inclusion to the industry, and to educate people outside the hemp industry about low-THC cannabis and its role in communities of color.

Mbonu laid out the NHAs action plan including pushing for farmers of color to get the same kind of access to all the things that are supposed to be available to the agricultural community.

He plans to help farmers of color connect with buyers to increase profits and also focus on expanding opportunities in manufacturing and research.

Its not just about being the landowner, Mbonu added.

The group also plans to advocate for removing a federal requirement that drug felons be barred from hemp business ownership for 10 years, a requirement in the 2018 Farm Bill that disproportionately excludes some communities from getting licenses to grow hemp.

Its still hindering the very communities we are trying to uplift, and it makes no sense, Stark said.

To learn more about the National Hemp Associations inclusion plans, check out the exclusive video interview below.

Kristen Nichols can be reached at[emailprotected]

The rest is here:

Fighting remnants of the war on drugs: A look at the National Hemp Associations efforts to break down racist barriers - Hemp Industry Daily

Bret Gustafson is Associate Professor of Sociocultural Anthropology at Washington University in St. Louis. Gustafsons work focuses on the anthropology of politics and the political, with a particular interest in Latin American social movements, state transformation, and the politics of development. His research has engaged Indigenous movements in both Bolivia and Guatemala. He is the author of,Bolivia in the Age of Gas,recently published by Duke University Press (September, 2020). In this new book, Gustafson explores how the struggle over natural gas has reshaped Bolivia, along with the rise, and ultimate fall, of the countrys first Indigenous-led government. Though grounded in the unique complexities of Bolivia, the volume argues that fossil-fuel political economies worldwide are central to the reproduction of militarism and racial capitalism. His first book, New Languages of the State: Indigenous Resurgence and the Politics of Knowledge in Bolivia (2009) was also published by Duke University Press. He is the co-editor of, Remapping Bolivia: Resources, Territory and Indigeneity in a Plurinational State (SAR Press, 2011), and Rethinking Intellectuals in Latin America (Vervuert, 2010). He has published in Latin American Perspectives, Anthropological Quarterly, Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology among other peer review scholarly journals.

Kathryn Ledebur is the director of Cochabamba-based policy think-tank, the Andean Information Network (AIN), and a visiting fellow at the University of Reading, UK. She is an expert on international drug policy, human rights, alternative coca and drug control strategies. Ledebur has written extensively for the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) and North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA), and published in Stability: International Journal of Security & Development. AIN provides information and analysis to NGO colleagues, the media, and international policymakers on developments in Bolivia and the impact of U.S. government and European policies. Working closely with civil society organizations in Latin America and in the United States, AIN promotes policy dialogue and the development of pragmatic alternatives that address the underlying economic, social, political and cultural needs of Bolivia.

Les Robinson is a PhD Candidate in the Department of History, and Co-President of Brown War Watch.

See more & Register: https://watson.brown.edu/events/2020/bolivia-brink-natural-resources-war-drugs-and-future-democracy

Follow this link:

WATSON EVENTS: Bolivia On the Brink: Natural Resources, the War on Drugs, and the Future of Democracy - Andean Information Network

Many people point to Portugal as an example for the United States to emulate in dealing with illicit drugs.

But Portugals experience is often misunderstood. Although it decriminalized the use of all illicit drugs in small amounts in 2001, including heroin and cocaine, thats different from making them legal. And it did not decriminalize drug trafficking, which would typically involve larger quantities.

Portugals law removed incarceration, but people caught possessing or using illicit drugs may be penalized by regional panels made up of social workers, medical professionals and drug experts. The panels can refer people to drug treatment programs, hand out fines or impose community service.

A lot of the benefits over the years from Portugals policy shift have come not from decriminalization per se, but in the expansion of substance-use disorder treatment. Such a move might bring the most tangible benefit to the United States.

After decriminalization, the number of people in Portugal receiving drug addiction treatment rose, according to a study by Hannah Laqueur, an assistant professor in the Department of Emergency Medicine at the University of California, Davis. Moreover, as of 2008, three-quarters of those with opioid use disorder were receiving medication-assisted treatment. Though thats considered the best approach, less than half of Americans who could benefit from medication-assisted treatment for opioid addiction receive it.

Most accounts of the Portugal experiment have focused on decriminalization, but decriminalization was part of a broader effort intended to encourage treatment, Professor Laqueur said.

In turn, the country made financial investments in harm reduction and treatment services. Research in the United States shows a dollar spent on treatment saves more than a dollar in crime reduction.

Opioid overdose deaths fell after Portugals policy change. So did new cases of diseases associated with injection drug use, such as hepatitis C and H.I.V. This latter change could also be a result of increases in needle exchange programs in the country. Those programs often meet opposition in the United States, but a cost-effectiveness analysis published in 2014 replicated the research of others in finding that a dollar invested in syringe exchange programs in the United States saves at least six dollars in avoided costs associated with H.I.V. alone.

Harm reduction through needle exchanges and greater treatment availability are among the reasons for the wide disparity in drug overdose deaths between the United States (with a rising and staggering total of nearly 72,000 last year) and European countries like Portugal (which typically has well below 100 such deaths a year). These reflect a different mind-set on addiction; in Portugal, its treated strictly as a disease.

Not everything got better immediately after Portugals shift. One study found an increase in drug experimentation after the law. But this was a transient effect most experimentation did not lead to regular drug use.

Murders increased by 41 percent in the five years after the drug reform law (after which they fell), and drug trafficking grew. These could be related.

Any change in the drug market can bring about violence, said Keith Humphreys, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford University. Drug traffickers may have incorrectly understood the Portuguese law as a sign the country was a safe place to expand their business, leading to clashes among them and between them and the police.

One way much of the United States is similar to Portugal is that penalties for cannabis use have fallen. Portugals regional panels typically impose no penalties for cannabis use, the most-used illicit drug in Portugal. In the United States, most states have legalized medical marijuana, and some have legalized it for recreational use.

One consequence of ending incarceration as a penalty in Portugal is that prison overcrowding decreased. The same would be expected to occur in the United States.

Its important to note that we dont know what would have happened in Portugal had the 2001 drug reforms not occurred, so findings should be taken with a grain of salt. Some of the observed changes could result from trends predating the change in laws. For example, even before the 2001 law, those convicted of drug use were typically fined, not incarcerated. In each of the eight years before the 2001 law, the number of people incarcerated for drug use was no higher than 42 and was as low as four. (Portugals population is roughly that of the Chicago metro area, about 10 million.)

From the war on drugs to todays marijuana legalization, U.S. drug laws and attitudes have grown more relaxed over the decades. But whether the United States could see the same benefits as Portugal if it went further and followed the path of decriminalization is less clear. In drug policy, there are many trade-offs. Though we may not have strong evidence that drug decriminalization alone is widely beneficial, we also lack compelling evidence of benefits from criminalizing drug use, which costs the United States billions of dollars annually, much of it because of incarceration.

Using those funds to treat people, instead of incarcerate them, could go a long way to addressing the harms of illicit drug use in the U.S., Professor Humphreys said.

The rest is here:

Pointers From Portugal on Addiction and the Drug War - The New York Times

If you are a parent, or hope to be someday, youve likely considered how you will teach your children about drugs. If you grew uplike I didin a home that taught abstinence only, and went to a school that taught the DARE program, you know that what you were told and what you learned on your own are very different.

Having the wrong information about drugs can be annoying at best and deadly at worst. Imagine a child who is told to just say no to heroin and benzodiazepines. What would happen if this child one day found themself at a party, being offered Percocet and Xanax by friends? How would they know that combining these two drugs heightens the risk of a fatal overdose?

Jen Sarduy considered such risks after seeing problematic drug use in her family and community growing up. Based in Fort Worth, Texas, she now works as the communications manager for the National Harm Reduction Coalition. As a mother of three children aged 6, 8 and 13, she is having constant conversations with them about drugs, safety and harm reduction.

I became a parent very young, and I knew I wanted to parent my children in a way that was more open than how I grew up, she told Filter. I knew when my parents were lying to me and it left gaps. I wanted to create more space with my kids about what a conversation on drugs could look like.

Sarduys children often ask her questions about drug users they see in the media and on television. For her, these are opportunities to talk about the negative ways society perceives people who use drugs.

Its important for us to combat representations first, she said. These conversations in our home usually start with our kids seeing a portrayal of someone on the news thats inaccurate or stigmatizing, so we have to explain whats wrong with that.

Conversations in our lives stem from questions like, Why was this person adopted? So we have to talk about how the War on Drugs took that child away from their family, she continued. Its all tied up in how the world works.

Working directly with people who inject drugs, homeless people and formerly incarcerated people, Sarduy has plenty of opportunities to educate her children about the ways in which these groups are discriminated against. Kids learn from us, she said. We just talk to people like people. We model how we can offer support instead of stigma.

It just made me look elsewhere, to my peerswho were also not well educated about drugs.

The need to help parents communicate better about drugs inspired Angela Rabbitt to co-create a webinar series, titled: How To Have The Drug Talk. She is a social worker with experience in harm reduction, and also the mother of a 10-year-old child.

I knew that my parents had experimented with drugs, so I thought they were very hypocritical, she told Filter. My dad was very anti-marijuana and didnt talk about anything with us. That, combined with my school education on drugs, made me mistrustful of what I was told. It just made me look elsewhere, to my peerswho were also not well educated about drugs.

Her weekly webinar series focuses on addiction and overdose prevention for families. Rabbitt is already having conversations with her daughter about drugsthough she hopes it will be several more years before she starts experimenting.

Our culture sees drugs and sex as inherently bad and taboo, but Id rather present her with facts, Rabbitt said. We talk about what different drugs are and their effects, and opioid overdose and how that works. My daughter also doesnt get easily afraid of things.

What helps me is having an air of curiosity and non-judgement, and allowing her to ask questions. And being honest and willing to answer all her questionsunlike for many parents, where the response is, All Im going to say about drugs is theyre bad.'

For some parents, personal tragedy has pushed them to want to teach other parents. Carol Katz Beyer, a mother from New Jersey, lost two of her sons to fentanyl-involved overdose in their late 20s. Through her advocacy with Families for Sensible Drug Policy, she now helps share information about safer drug use while advocating to end the War on Drugs. On October 2, her organization debuted a virtual Family Drug Support Listening Session for caregivers to share knowledge and experience.

Unfortunately my approach to drugs was very different from what they were taught in schools and in rehab, Katz Beyer told Filter. My sons were labeled as powerless and addicts, and I dont see any other health condition being treated in that way. She urges parents to see problematic drug use as health problem rather than a moral issue, and to approach it with love and support.

Of course, parents arent raising their children in a vacuum. Kids will grow up receiving conflicting and confusing information about drugsfrom their teachers, from the media, from popular culture and their peers.

Rabbit acknowledges the challenges this adds to parenting. I assume my daughters drug education in school will be quite inaccurate, she said. But I hope she is the one who can talk to her friends and share her knowledge in class. Thats why I focus on giving her the right information, so she can then help others.

Katz Beyer stresses that even with all the right information and education, living within the drug war inherently creates risks for people using drugs. She experienced this firsthand when her son Bryan went through the addiction treatment system in Florida. He was prescribed Suboxone by a doctor to taper his heroin use.

But when he went to a sober living facility, he was banned from using Suboxone. Children who likely are only experimenting with drugs are being funneled into abstinence-only programs, she said. Stopping use and then returning to use, especially if fentanyl is involved, can lead to a fatal overdose.

We know that risk-taking is part of their wonder years. But when you feel like youre being judged, often you wont express what you need.

She encourages parents to approach their childrens drug use within the context of comparable behaviors. We tell our children to eat right, and wear a helmet when they ride their bike. We know that risk-taking is part of their wonder years. But when you feel like youre being judged, often you wont express what you need.

Rabbitt echoed this. Telling your children they cant do something just pushes them to do it secretly. Let your child know they can call you if theyre in trouble, without punishing them.

And if your child shows signs of problematic use, she suggests using questions to help them discover whether their behavior aligns with their own values and goals.

Have a conversation with your kid about their drinking or drug use, she said. If your goal is to go to college but youre not getting good grades, how is your use impacting that? How is it affecting your safety and those around you? That can help kids see if their behavior is getting in their own way.

Sarduy emphasized personal autonomy and consent when having the drug talk. Shemakes sure her own kids are well-versed in the harm reduction techniques in which she specializes. They are each trained in naloxone administration and how to spot an overdose, and are familiar with syringe issues and HIV tests.

Avoiding hypocrisy is important to her. I try not to set boundaries that are not for my own body, she said. So we talk about world traditions and how people use substances, and legality. We want to equip our child to make an informed decision, and not make choices that make them unsafe when they want to experiment.

Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

See the original post here:

How Will You Talk to Your Kids About Drug Safety? - Filter

This is a rush transcript

Taya Graham: Hello. My name is Taya Graham and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. Just a reminder, this show has a single purpose, holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we dont just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine and expose the underlying system that makes bad policing possible, and it is that system that will be the topic of our show today. Because while we can all see stark examples of police brutality and law enforcement overreach, the acts themselves are often the result of a long causality chain of injustice. Case in point is this countrys war on drugs, and by now we all know the story. The Nixon administration, eager to reassert the power of policing after a decade of social unrest, created the DEA in 1973, declaring an all out global war on drugs. Since then, the DEA has grown in power and influence spending roughly $2.8 billion in 2019 on drug interdiction and investigation.

Remember, almost every administration has increased DEA funding and ratcheted up the initial war on drugs into a wholesale assault on civil liberties and social equity that has redefined this country. But the reason Im raising this topic today is because of a story. A story about one mans battle in the so-called war and how this ruined his exemplary reputation as a cardiac surgeon and how he lost 18 months of his life in jail, and what this says about the true purpose of this battle over the right to alter our own minds. Its a personal struggle that not only reveals how costly drug enforcement has been, but also reveals a deeper truism that the war on drugs is not just an assault on the poor, the disenfranchised, and the political efficacy of the 99%, but is also in many ways rooted in a war over our minds and the profit that comes with waging it.

Well, what do I mean? Well, consider one of the oddest targets of the nations drug warriors, marijuana. This medicinal plant has been touted as a treatment for afflictions as disparate as epilepsy, to nausea as a result of chemotherapy. It is a known therapeutic for pain and a proven tonic for anxiety and stress. All of these benefits from a purely organic substance that seems perfectly suited to soothe the human body. But as many of you know, the DEA classifies it as a Schedule 1 drug. Well, what does that mean? That it has no therapeutic value, is highly addictive and dangerous. In short, it is one of the most dangerous substances available. Its a classification reserved for drugs like heroin and methamphetamine. So how did a plant that is now being prescribed by doctors in dozens of States across the country, end up with such a perilous classification? And why, even after its been legalized in 11 States as well as Washington DC, why does it still remain on list?

Thats where the story of this show begins. Its a tale of a man, a doctor no less, who understood how destructive the approach to marijuana was. In fact, he was so convinced the science proved pot was almost a magic elixir for the human body, that he staked his career on it and paid the price. But before we get to his story, I want to go to my reporting partner Stephen Janis, who has a breaking update on the state of pot in this country and the political fight to legalize it. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me.

Stephen Janis: Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham: First, before I ask you about marijuana legalization, I want to get an update about our topics last week, the use of ketamine by law enforcement. We had talked about the case of a Colorado councilwoman, Anita Springsteen, about the arrest of her boyfriend, who was later dosed with ketamine. You reached out to Colorado authorities about the use of it while arrested and obtained some startling figures. Can you talk about it?

Stephen Janis: Well, I know, as we mentioned in the last show, there were 902 uses of ketamine over the past two years and 163 incidents where there was a problem which arose, and this paper I got here gives us some details on that. We had dozens and dozens of cases of hypoxia as a result of ketamine, which means you have a low blood oxygen level, which of course is something that afflicts people with COVID. We also had a lot of cases of apnea, meaning interruption of breathing. So thats 16% of the cases. That means a lot of times, people who were administered ketamine are experiencing adverse reactions to the drug. So only raises more questions about why its being used so widely.

Taya Graham: Now, just a few weeks ago, Congress reached a critical juncture on pot legalization. What happened, or more accurately, what didnt happen?

Stephen Janis: Well, it was called the MORE act, Marijuana Opportunity Re-investment and Expungement Act, and it was supposed to basically take marijuana and take it off of that horrible Schedule 1 where its basically classified as a most dangerous drug, a drug with no medicinal purposes. But what happened was that Congress decided it couldnt vote on it during the COVID crisis because it hadnt voted on any sort of extension of COVID aid or unemployment aid. So what it means is that all this so-called or hopeful reforms arent going to take place. It was a big blow, I think, for marijuana reform activists and what was seen as being a big first step. One of the things that the Act would do would give an incentive to States to expunge marijuana arrests. It would also have helped veterans get access to legal marijuana, because right now, because of the federal law, veterans are not allowed access to marijuana in many cases, because federal law conflicts with local law. So its a big step backwards.

Taya Graham: So what are the chances now that this passes at all? Whats at stake?

Stephen Janis: Everything is going to hinge upon the election. If Republicans continue to have control over the Senate, theres no way this bill passes. If indeed Democrats take over, there is a slight chance it will pass. I think it will pass a House, but its really up in the air. And especially if Republicans are in charge, there is no way this bill passes the Senate.

Taya Graham: As Stephens reporting points out, there is significant federal resistance to legalizing a plant that has many beneficial uses. But to get into the deeper reason why the resistance is so fierce, Im joined now by a man whose story exemplifies the deeper, more insidious reasons the drug war is still being waged across this country. His name is Dr. David Allen and he spent 18 months in jail for allegedly growing marijuana on his Missouri farm. But Ill let him tell the full story. Dr. Allen, thank you so much for joining me.

Dr. David Allen: Thank you for having me Taya.

Taya Graham: So Dr. Allen, tell me, why did police start investigating you?

Dr. David Allen: Thats hard to answer. Its because of enemies that I had that gave them false information that caused them to attack me. And the fact that I have this beautiful property, its 48 acres and its got about 30 acres of waters, like one big lake and three small ponds, and its fresh water, and its very valuable, and its close to the city. The drug task force had aerial photographs of my property with circles and arrows drawn on it where they were going to have the scuba diving training and where they were going to have the rifle range. So, the property is quite valuable. And the truth is if you own property in the United States, it kind of makes you a target.

Taya Graham: So what was the pretext they used to conduct this raid? We know that police departments benefit from asset forfeiture.

Dr. David Allen: They did a trash haul, and they said that they found some seeds, the stems, and a High Times magazine and thats what justified and some grow stuff like some fertilizer bags or something. And they said that that was what justified the search. The application for the warrant said that a anonymous person had called and said that they had seen illegal activity on the premises, or a friend of theirs has seen illegal activity on the premises. So it wasnt the person that actually called. They said that the person that called anonymously, they knew somebody that So there was a second hand report to begin with.

Taya Graham: What was the raid like and what happened?

Dr. David Allen: I was in California when the raid happened. They came in on my birthday to do the trash raid and the following day is when they made the raid. They came in and I have a building, a metal building off to the side, and there was a room in there that had some lights and air conditioning equipment and stuff in there, but it was being used for storage in there. So there was like big stereo speakers in there, and there was nothing in there. There was no water, no soil, no seeds, nothing in there, just some lights. And when the police came in there, they took photographs of all the stuff that looked like grow stuff, but they didnt take any photographs of the floor, which had all the storage stuff in there. So they deliberately tried to alter the evidence. But there was no heating in the building and the temperature was in February, so the temperature was like 35. And so there was no way you could even grow at that time of year.

Taya Graham: Then you ended up in prison for 18 months. Why did they hold you so long before trial?

Dr. David Allen: I was a prize for these people because I was a highly educated doctor that they were able to target, and they put a big sign up on the gate of this property, This property seized by police for drug use, or whatever. During the raid, they actually took a bunch of stuff out of the building, put it in the middle of the yard and burned it, just like the KKK would. This is all about money and it has to do with The drug task force are funded by a thing called the Byrne Grant. And the Byrne Grant was a bunch of anti-pot people got together and put some money together, and if you wanted to start a drug task force, what you did was you applied for the Byrne Grant. It gave you money for salaries for officers, but not for equipment or operating expenses.

So what happened, Sheriffs would hire a lawyer, start a company, give it a name, hire a head of the drug task force, hire a bunch of officers, and then they go out and raid people and they get to seize the property before you go to trial. And you have 30 days after they seize the property. If you dont answer that youre going to fight it, they got the property. So fortunately I was able to, after they seized this property, I was able to file that paperwork which delayed them from taking full possession of the property. So they had the property in their hands for three years. I was acquitted by jury nullification, so basically I was saved by jury nullification.

Taya Graham: So a reporter came and spoke to you. What happened then?

Dr. David Allen: I had written WLOX because WLOX had printed some photographs of a marijuana grow from an unrelated bust, and they were given to WLOX by the drug task force. So the drug task force gave WLOX false information, which they published, and is no longer available on the internet. If you try to look up the story on the internet, its scrubbed, you cant even find it anymore.

Taya Graham: What are some of the benefits of cannabis that youve discovered? How does it help people?

Dr. David Allen: People dont understand this is the infancy of this science. We havent discovered all the stuff were going to discover about this science, because this science has been inhibited by law. Its the only science that you can name thats been inhibited by laws preventing scientists from studying this. You can study chemical warfare stuff. You can study atomic stuff. You can study chemotherapeutic agents. Theres nothing you cant study, explosives, you cant study the endocannabinoid signaling system because its a Schedule 1 which means its not safe under doctors supervision.

So a medicine thats never killed anybody, and is proven to stop seizures, to stop cancers, to affect all kinds of people in a medicinal way, is illegal. And this is a war that were in. Its a drug war. And in all wars, theres rules of the war. So if you break the rules of the war, its war crimes. And certainly, if people are profiting from putting people in jail over marijuana, when they actually know that it could save peoples lives, then that is a war crime.

Taya Graham: I think its important to parse out the many layers of Dr. Allens story. A heart surgeon and a man who saved lives, carted off to jail for his work in researching and cultivating a drug that appears to have numerous healing qualities. A man who has dedicated his life to serving and helping others through science accused of numerous crimes. And just as troubling, had his property confiscated. Its a series of events that, as we promised at the beginning of the show, reveals the dark underbelly of the drug war, but raises an even more significant question about the entire premise of the so-called justice system, which took both his property and his freedom. Its telling because the system which incarcerated Allen was waging a battle against the disease that has little to do with public safety, or even the slightest notion of a crime. Instead, the actions authorities took against him were squarely aimed at using the psychoactive properties of a plant to confiscate the liberty and property of someone who defied the notion that either were subject to government control.

Lets remember that the science Dr. Allen pursued studying marijuana makes the case that the plant itself is far from harmful. In fact, just the opposite is true. But as Dr. Allen points out, the only real liability is that marijuana can be grown freely and consumed freely, which makes it less useful to a society accustomed to profiting immensely from sickness. And as he makes clear, a widely available plant that can not be patented and sucked into the nations pharmacological industrial complex. And its a threat to the very system of profiting off disease itself. And its interesting to note how authorities enable such an irrational approach. Pot is illegal for the feds, not because its proven to be harmful, but because it alters the mind. It is the psychology of the drug that makes it dangerous, at least in theory. And it is the fear that mainstream media and propaganda is based on that sense of mind altering that they use to stoke the drug war that makes arrests like Dr. Allens even possible.

This is why we told Dr. Allens story, why we emphasize the true character of the drug war, as it is revealed through the war on weed. As weve discussed on the show before, American policing is often far field from conducting investigations or solving crimes. This is particularly true in poor communities and in communities of color where the war on drugs has exacted the heaviest toll. Instead, law enforcement is often focused on what we have called its hegemonic capabilities. That is its ability to intercede on behalf of power to reinforce social and racial inequities. To reduce, as we said before, the political efficacy of working class people. And what Dr. Allens case illustrates is how this idea works. How much American policing is confiscating property, limiting basic freedoms, and patrolling our minds as well as our bodies. Its a cautionary tale we ignore at our peril. A story of the true toll of the war on drugs and the growth of law enforcement that we cant ignore lest we all get caught in its web.

Id like to thank Stephen Janis for his reporting, editing, and research on this piece. Stephen, thank you so much for your help.

Stephen Janis: Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham: And Id like to thank Dr. Allen for sharing his journey with us and for his expertise. Thank you, Dr. Allen.

Dr. David Allen: God bless.

Taya Graham: And of course, Id be remiss if I didnt thank friend of the show, Noli Dee. Thanks, Noli Dee. And I want you to know that if you have evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please email us and we might be able to investigate. Please email us. You can do so at partips@therealnews.com. And of course you can message me directly @TayasBaltimore on Facebook or Twitter. And please like, comment, and share. You know I read your comments, like them and appreciate them, and I try to answer your questions whenever I can.

My name is Taya Graham, and I am your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please, be safe out there.

Visit link:

The war on pot isnt over, just ask this doctor arrested for his research - The Real News Network

Our final endorsements are for the District 3 Oakland City Council race and one of the City Council seats in Pinole. In Oakland, Councilwoman Lynette McElhaney, an ally, is seeking reelection, while in Pinole, gay resident Devin Murphy will become the second out person elected to the City Council, as only two candidates are running for two seats. His name, however, will appear on the ballot (unlike some other unopposed candidates whose names will not.) For Oaklanders in D3, we recommend McElhaney; in Pinole, voters should elect Murphy.

OaklandLynette McElhaney has been a strong ally on the council and is seeking a third term. She has been an effective councilmember, working to establish the city's police commission and co-authoring the Protect Oakland Renters Act, which was approved by voters in 2016. Her district includes West Oakland, the Jack London Square neighborhood, downtown, and Uptown.

In responses to our candidate questionnaire, McElhaney wrote that she supported redirecting police department funds "to invest in people." In June, she was among the City Council members who voted to cut $14.6 million from the Oakland Police Department's budget. For some, that doesn't go far enough, but McElhaney pointed out that the city needs to change from its "War on Drugs financial model that has made cities more dangerous and all but destroyed families. ... As we look to reclaim funds, we must begin to look at phases for funding, allowing for growth in human-centered budgeting that will strengthen over time," she wrote. She calls for funding a social worker model for mental health crisis response and a support system for families to interrupt the syndrome of intimate partner/domestic violence and child abuse.

On housing, McElhaney supports middle-income housing programs, such as subsidies for first-time home buyers, which she stated allows low- and moderate-income families to build stability; tax rebates for landlords that rent to moderate-income families without a subsidy, thus rewarding tenure; and expanding accessory dwelling units. She supports building housing on or near BART property, which is happening in Oakland, particularly mixed income housing and subsidized units in every census tract. During the pandemic, McElhaney wants to see statewide rent relief; Oakland already passed an eviction moratorium for those affected by COVID.

She would like to see more representation by lower income people on city boards and commissions, including Black, Brown, and LGBTQ residents. To encourage that, she has suggested removing transportation barriers by permitting virtual participation (something that is happening for all meetings now because of the pandemic); and perhaps holding some commission meetings on weekends since many BIPOC work at night. She would also like to expand mentorship, apprenticeship, and internship opportunities so that people can increase their participation in civic affairs. McElhaney would like to fund and expand the city's Department of Race and Equity to provide training on inclusion in outreach efforts.

As we recently reported in an interview with McElhaney, her queer son, Victor, was killed in a shooting in Los Angeles last year, and she began speaking publicly about his life last month.

Overall, McElhaney brings her life experience to the City Council, where she has been a productive member. To help small businesses, she wrote that she led the effort to rush $25 million in federal CARES COVID funds to support them, along with arts and rental relief. "Our goal is to keep Oaklanders in business and home as we ride out the recession," she wrote.

McElhaney has accomplished much on the City Council; voters should reelect her to continue her work.

Pinole City Council candidate Devin Murphy. Photo: Courtesy the candidate

PinoleVoters in the East Bay city almost certainly will elect Devin Murphy to one of two City Council seats, as there are only two candidates on the ballot. He answered our candidate questionnaire with the goal of producing a higher vote total to demonstrate the strength of his support. A gay man and planning commissioner in the city, Murphy is also the first Black person to lead the Lambda Democratic Club of Contra Costa County, which was instrumental this year in moving various cities and towns in the East Bay to fly the Pride flag in June.

Murphy founded Visit Pinole, a campaign to support economic growth and vitality of small businesses there. He also served as an appointee of the City Council and West Contra Costa Unified School District to the Citizens Bond Oversight Committee where he was responsible for overseeing $1.6 billion in funding from voter-approved bond measures. In short, he has experience in local government that should serve him well on the council.

On policing, Murphy wrote that defunding the police means reallocating or redirecting money from the police department to other local government agencies that "create tangible community solutions to some of our deepest public safety issues, including homelessness, neighborhood violence, and mental illness." Toward that end, Murphy wants to reinvest in parks and trails, youth programs, fire safety, and full funding for the arts and recreation.

He supports constructing housing near BART, and wrote that East Bay cities, including Pinole, "must steer toward the direction of affordable transit-oriented housing." That also includes along San Pablo Avenue, which is a main route for Western Contra Costa County buses.

Murphy wants to make local government responsive to constituents and proposes to equip residents with open access to the city through online forms and using social media to inform them of news and important updates. Greater access and involvement could increase diversity and participation on city panels, he contends.

In short, Murphy has experience working in local government, and has a vision for the council.

Help keep the Bay Area Reporter going in these tough times. To support local, independent, LGBTQ journalism, consider becoming a BAR member.

View original post here:

Editorial: McElhaney in Oakland; Murphy in Pinole - Bay Area Reporter, America's highest circulation LGBT newspaper

Forensic personnel work in the exhumation of human remains found in Guerrero state, Mexico in January 2019. Photo: Getty Images / PEDRO PARDO / AFP

At the height of Mexicos deadly war on drug cartels, its chief architect privately admitted it was unwinnable and that legalising drugs was the only way out, VICE News has learned.

That architect is Felipe Caldern, Mexicos former president. Caldern was unrepentant in his final state of the union address in 2012, proclaiming that Mexico had started along the path toward a life full of liberty and security. Caldern has staunchly defended the militarised war on drugs, also saying in 2018 that he had no regrets.

But in private comments to then Deputy British Prime Minister Nick Clegg in 2011 which have gone unreported until now he appeared to contradict his outward stance.

Caldern had made his whole name in Mexican politics as 'I'm going to win the war on drugs', Clegg, now Facebooks top PR official and also a representative for the Global Commission for Drug Policy, told VICE News.

He said to me, 'Do you think there will ever be the regulated sale of drugs in Britain or America? Because I've come to the view' and I remember he said it with such pathos 'That we've spent years trying to wage this war on drugs that it is unwinnable. You will never win unless you can squeeze out criminality by moving towards the regulation of drugs'.

Calderns apparent acknowledgement of the futility of the war on drugs even while he was waging it full throttle will raise serious questions over the moral legitimacy of the militarised campaign in Mexico, which has given rise to the most violent period in the country's history.

As soon as he took power, he dispatched the military throughout the country to attack cartels a policy that led to spiralling deaths and seemingly scant benefits with an estimated 275,000 people killed since 2007.

More than 73,000 people remain missing and feared dead since the declaration of the war on drugs, with 39,000 unidentified bodies in the countrys morgues.

In a statement issued this week to VICE News, Caldern did not deny the conversation had taken place but claimed he never said the war on drugs was unwinnable. He said he had long raised the possibility of legalisation as a solution to issues around drug-related violence, but was never convinced of its merits.

Mexicos current President Andrs Manuel Lpez Obrador (AMLO) has pulled back on Calderns all-out war on the cartels, which had continued under his successor Enrique Pea Nieto. Yet the cartels have only grown in strength, and violent killings have reached record levels. More than 31,000 people were murdered last year.

Despite declarations from AMLO that the war on drugs is over, Mexicos security forces are continuing to go after drug trafficking bosses.

Clegg, who lobbied for a more liberal UK drug policy while in government, said his conversation with Caldern on the morning of the 29th of March 2011 in Mexico City convinced him that legalising drugs is the only sensible response to growing global demand.

British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg talks with Mexican President Felipe Calderon before a press conference in Mexico City in March 2011. Photo: Getty Images / Alfredo Estrella / AFP

[It] made a huge impression on me, said Clegg. It really hit me between the eyes. There was someone who had really lived the war on drugs, and was really reduced to a view that this was just never ever ever going to be won.

However, in the press conference following the pairs meeting, the former Liberal Democrat MP said he admired Caldern and hailed the bravery that [he and his] government have shown in fighting against organised crime and drug trafficking.

Caldern told VICE News that alternatives to prohibition including regulation or market-driven solutions should not be discounted as methods to end the violence around the production, distribution, and consumption of drugs.

Although I have said that we should contemplate alternatives to penal and legal solutions, I haven't proposed legalisation openly because I'm not sure about it, he said. It's necessary to act responsibly, which means that there should be studies beforehand, around the social and economic consequences, some of which could be disastrous for societies.

In 2018, Caldern told VICE News that he first deployed the army in 2006 after a request from a state governor who said he had lost control.

We got very good results at the beginning, he said, adding: Honestly, I think nobody expected that the violence could reach those levels. However, I insist, I'm absolutely clear that violence started because of the fight to control territory between the organised crime groups, between the cartels, not because of the action of the government.

Questioned about how Mexican military action led the narco gangs to fragment without appearing to impact the overall ability of criminals to traffic drugs, Caldern said in 2018: Of course there will be some rearrangements or instability or whatever, but the end of the game is exactly when you take over completely or recover completely the control for the citizens.

He also blamed Americas gun laws: The US government, Congress, and society honestly did not do anything to stop the flow of money, to stop the flow of weapons. Actually, the paradox is we seize like 106,000 guns and weapons, and 90 percent of them were sold legally in the US.

In 2009, following Calderons own proposals, new laws to decriminalise personal possession of small quantities of some drugs were passed suggesting he accepted the inevitability of drug use after previous plans were scrapped due to US opposition.

In 2016, a special session of the United Nations was convened after a joint request in 2012 from Caldern's Mexico, as well as heads of state in Guatemala and Colombia whose then president Juan Manuel Santos led the efforts to discuss radically overhauling the UN's prohibitionist approach to drugs. However, the session left reformers disappointed, as no significant changes to the global drug control regime were passed.

Excerpt from:

Exclusive: President Behind Mexicos War on Drugs Admitted It Was Unwinnable - VICE

Felipe Caldern, former president of Mexico, clarified that he never said, nor has he argued that the war against drug trafficking was impossible to win. The foregoing, after a publication by Vice News, where it was assured that Caldern had made such an affirmation to the then British Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, apparently on a visit by him to Mexico City in March 2011.

I just dont even agree on the terms and concepts behind such a statement. That said, I have always made reference to a comprehensive security strategy with three elements: the decision to confront criminal organizations, the construction of reliable and effective security and justice institutions, as well as the reconstruction of the social fabric, Caldern said in a letter.

Although I have spoken out for contemplating alternatives to the punitive approach, I have not openly proposed legalization because I am not sure about it. It is necessary to act responsibly, which is why, first, studies must be carried out on its social and economic consequences, some of which can be disastrous for societies.

Let us remember that during Felipe Calderns six-year term, a strategy against organized crime was launched, which included the Army, known as the war against drug trafficking, and that it has been criticized for the number of deaths and disappearances it caused .

The clarification of Caldern, who ruled Mexico from 2006 to 2012, comes after Nick Clegg allegedly revealed fragments of his talk with the former president and accused how he accepted that the war would never be won unless progress was made towards a regulation of drugs in the world.

View post:

Caldern says he didn't say the war on drugs can't be won - Somag News

Jacob Sullum does a great job of detailing the horrendous state of our criminal justice system that essentially encourages fatal confrontations.

The Legal Response to Breonna Taylors Death Shows How Drug Prohibition Transforms Murder Into Self-Defense

State prosecutors concluded that the two other officers were justified in returning fire after Taylors boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, shot one of them in the leg. Yet local prosecutors decided not to pursue an attempted murder charge against Walker.

Those seemingly contradictory decisions reflect Kentuckys standards for self-defense, which make it possible that Walker and the cops were both legally justified in using deadly force. But that puzzling situation also has to be understood in the context of the war on drugs, which frequently involves armed home invasions that invite potentially deadly confusion. That unjustified violence is the root of the problem highlighted by Taylors senseless death and the unsatisfying legal response to it.

Read the original post:

The war on drugs complicity in the death of Breonna Drug WarRant - Drug WarRant

Of the great lessons from the last 50 years of U.S. history, we should have learned by now that declaring war against an abstract noun is a terrible idea. Whether in The War on Drugs, The War on Poverty, or The War on Terror, the noun always wins.

So naturally, politicians in California have spent the last century waging another awful policy war: The War on Fire, in which they tried to end the natural cycle of fire in California by putting out fires.

The result? Well, more fire. A lot more.

Fire suppression leads to a buildup in dry fuel on the ground. Without human intervention, wildfire would burn this dry fuel in Californias forests and chaparral biomes. That keeps the ecosystem healthy. Wildfire is as much a part of nature in California as are the Sierra-Nevada mountains or the Pacific Coast. In prehistoric times, millions of acres burned each year.

Today, California burns only a fraction of the land needed to reduce wildfire risk to a tolerable level, sometimes as few as ten-thousand acres per year. The deficit has turned entire swathes of the California wilderness into a ticking time bomb.

This year, the bomb went off. California leaders and national news media have mostly blamed the crisis on climate change, an important issue that politicians are using as a scapegoat.

Hotter and drier conditions around the world, worsening from climate change, are a major problem. If we do nothing, it will mean more -- and worse -- wildfires.

But to claim that a modest temperature increase from climate change is the principal cause of the fires burning today is absolutely wrong.

California is on fire precisely because of its War on Fire. It is a war that ignores science and history, and were all paying the price.

Indigenous peoples were burning the forests of California long before Europeans arrived, to promote ecological diversity and support human habitation. Only in the 20th century did fire fall out of favor in the American West, when coastal Californians began to move into the wilderness.

The movers built wooden houses in forests that would normally be burned in wildfire every few decades. They brought new power and gas lines. They also brought an army of bureaucrats and legislators, ready to suppress any and all fire near their new communities, even as they massively increased fire risk.

The War on Fires bureaucrats wrote burdensome regulations and laws hindering burns on state land. They established air quality boards and onerous approval processes to prevent people from burning on their own land.

The rationale of the war was straightforward and empathetic: fire is bad -- it destroys homes and kills people. To protect property and life is a noble goal, but The War on Fire has completely and predictably failed to stop the fires that actually matter: the big ones. When we extinguish all the small fires which are not destructive, we substantially increase the risk of large fires which are.

Fallen power lines, lightning, and a few gender-reveal parties gone wrong set off massive, deadly, and destructive fires this summer. Due to similar incidents in 2018, California has seen record wildfires multiple years in a row.

So, I suggest that California policymakers carrying the banner of Science ought to listen to some actual science. Heres what we can do to start:

Unfortunately, these scientific solutions have not caught the attention of Gavin Newsom or anybody else with the power to implement them. He and other leaders are far more focused on hand-waving about the climate. Worldwide decarbonization is an excellent goal. But California is on fire right now, and we need serious proposals from policymakers.

Lets check in with Gavin and see what his plan is

Thats right. VOTE.

Hey, Governor Hairgel! California already voted for you!

Gavin Newsom governs California with a Democratic supermajority. He can implement whatever policies he and his party want. They have controlled policymaking in the Golden State for nearly a quarter century, and vote for us again! is the best they can come up with?

They have the scientific studies. They have the recommendations of their own commissions. Their citizens cannot breathe outside. They do nothing.

Its time to wake up and smell the wildfire. A century of policy failure has turned California into an orange hellscape and state leaders cant do anything but blame others. Governor Newsom and the rest of Sacramento ought to stop with the excuses and get to work -- or step aside for people who will!

Read the original here:

The War on Fire - Stanford Review

William J. Watkins, Jr. Thursday September 24, 2020 11:41 AM PDT

Two police officers have been shot in Louisville as mobs ransacked local businesses. The mob did not get the murder charge they wanted and now are taking things into their own hands. Unfortunately, even organizations such as the NAACP are continuing to allege that Taylor was murdered by the police. They will not accept a reckless endangerment charge for just one officer.

What happened to Taylor was a tragedy, and one can make compelling arguments about the high cost of the war on drugs in America. But the Taylor situation is a poor example of alleged systematic racism and police brutality. Lets get the facts straight.

Local officers were investigating Jamarcus Glover on charges of drug dealing. He was Taylors ex-boyfriend and they still had some sort of relationship. Taylor allowed Glover to receive mail at her apartment and he continued to frequent the apartment before traveling back to his drug-dealing headquarters. Officers obtained a search warrant for Taylors apartment and other locations associated with Glover. The warrant was approved by a magistrate as required by law. Much has been made that this was a no knock warrant, but evidence shows that the police did knock and announce before entering the apartment. Unbeknownst to police, Taylor had a new boyfriend with her. The boyfriend was armed. The boyfriend fired the first shot and hit a police officer. The police returned fire. The shots killed Taylor. No drugs or drug-trafficking evidence was found at the apartment.

Again, her death is a tragedy. But it was not murder. Murder is typically defined as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Here, police were where they were allowed to be, conducting an investigation, executing a search warrant, and were fired upon by the boyfriend. There was no malice in their actions directed toward Taylor. The one officer who was charged had retreated, taken cover, and fired blindly into the apartment. His reckless shots did not hit Taylor. He was charged with wanton endangerment because his actions manifested extreme indifference to the value of human life. This seems appropriate.

Due process was followed in this case. In Kentucky, prosecutors submit evidence to a 12-person grand jury. Nine of the 12 must determine whether there is probable cause for an indictment to go forward. Probable cause means that the accused most likely committed the crime. Probable cause is not a high standard. If prosecutors cannot get a true bill indictment when presenting witnesses in the grand jury with no defense lawyer objecting or cross-examining the witnesses, then the case must be seen for it is: weak and wanting. Thats what the demanded murder charge was in this case. The law simply did not support it.

We can lament the loss of Taylors life, but it is reckless to continue to claim she was murdered and a victim of some sort of invisible hand of oppression in America. People who continue to press this narrative are causing more innocents to be harmed, property to be destroyed, and our country to be ripped apart by strife. They need to stop.

Go here to see the original:

Breonna Taylor Riots and More Irresponsible Rhetoric | William J. Watkins, Jr. - The Beacon