Monthly Archives: March 2022

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte is unlikely to stand trial in his remaining few months in office for crimes against humanity over his so-called war on drugs, but bereaved families of the victims said they will continue to fight it out whether in an international or a domestic court.

Duterte, whose populist campaigns since taking office in 2016 included the brutal anti-drug war, has claimed he had so many dead bodies of narcotics offenders dumped in Manila Bay that the "fish will grow fat." He recently said he wants his successor to continue "killing" them to stop substance abuse.

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte speaks at a press conference in October 2019. (Kyodo)

With the May 9 presidential elections looming, survey frontrunner Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and closest rival and opposition icon Vice President Leni Robredo both said they will carry over the anti-drug campaign but with emphasis on prevention and rehabilitation.

But unlike Marcos Jr., Robredo said she will cooperate with the International Criminal Court in investigating the deaths of 12,000 to 30,000 civilians, including children caught in the crossfire, and reinstate the Philippines' membership to the Rome Statute that governs the ICC.

Duterte, whose daughter Sara Duterte-Carpio is running for vice president under Marcos' ticket, is unbothered and told citizens to "never mind" the ICC.

The election is seen as a "game changer" in prosecuting Duterte and erring policemen, who routinely claimed self-defense in killing small-time drug dealers and other criminals, said Edre Olalia, the president of the National Union of People's Lawyers, or NUPL, that helps victims' families.

He said it will be an "interesting scenario" when Duterte loses presidential immunity from lawsuits after his six-year term ends on June 30, though the government could use his leaving office to justify its willingness and ability to investigate the issue independent of the ICC.

The Philippines in 2018 withdrew from the Rome Statute as Duterte accused the tribunal of "being utilized as a political tool against the Philippines." He denied committing genocide or war crimes as "the deaths occurring in the process of legitimate police operation lacked the intent to kill."

On Sept. 15, 2021, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber authorized an investigation into the killings committed between November 2011, when Duterte as mayor of the southern city of Davao was accused of running a hit squad there, and March 2019, when the Philippines' withdrawal took effect. The ICC investigation, however, was suspended two months later after a deferral request by the Philippine government that also began its review of 52 drug raids during drug war operations in which the authorities said over 6,200 individuals were killed for resisting arrest.

"Drugs are still rampant to this day, yet no one dares speak out. It's useless to report it to the police because we think they're involved," said Sharon Tayactac, a barista in a coffee shop run by victims' relatives in Metro Manila. On Nov. 12, 2016, her brother Christian, 20, was shot dead by masked vigilantes in a low-income neighborhood in Quezon City.

Sharon said the police did not thoroughly investigate the case. "How could we file a case in the court when we didn't know who to file it against?" she said.

Sharon said Christian, who earned money from fixing cellphones, never used drugs.

Massage therapist Llore Pasco, 67, said her sons Crisanto, 34, and Juan Carlos, 31, who had been found dead with multiple gunshot wounds, were drug users though they quit long before Duterte took office.

In fact, Crisanto went on to become a security guard and was supposed to renew his license on May 11, 2017, when he and Juan Carlos went missing, Pasco said. Their bodies turned up the next day, each with 17 gunshot wounds.

"The police said they were involved in a robbery and that my sons tried to escape so the police chased them. But all the gunshots were on the front of their bodies," she said.

Pasco worries about how the investigation will turn out once Duterte steps down. NUPL's Olalia said the ICC could lift the suspension or permanently end the investigation, but either way his group will pursue charges.

"It was a shameful legacy that the next president must undo," Olalia said.

Duterte's government touted the war on drugs as a success, citing a 64 percent reduction in drug-related crime, the arrest of over 300,000 suspects, and the seizure of over 75.4 billion pesos ($1.4 billion) worth of drugs since 2016. A survey of 1,200 Filipinos by a public opinion firm WR Numero showed that 61 percent of respondents in 2021 wanted the anti-drug campaign continued.

Related coverage:

Duterte's party backs Philippine presidential bid of Marcos Jr.

Philippine presidential candidate Domagoso eyes naval buildup

Press body urges lifting of travel ban on journalist for Nobel Peace Prize

Read more:

FOCUS: "War on drugs" victims to pursue charges against Duterte after term - Kyodo News Plus

According to the latest data from Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the number of illegal immigrants stopped along the southwestern border went up to nearly 165,000 last month. Thats an increase of 6.6% over January.

CBP also reported a rise in drug seizures along the southern border in February. According to the data, CBP seized 21.4 thousand pounds of illegal drugs in February, up from 18.6 thousand pounds in January, although those numbers are still much lower than was reported in 2021.

During a Senate Armed Services hearing about strategic competition and security cooperation in the Western Hemisphere last week, U.S. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Auburn), who sits on the Armed Services Committee, said the United States isnt doing enough to stop illegal drugs from entering the country.

At the end of the day, what do we got to do? he asked. I mean, were losing. Were losing the war on drugs down at the border, and its coming across right and left, and well have people die around here today, overdosing, around our building here.

Tuberville tried to put the number of overdose deaths in perspective, pointing out the true extent of the problem.

You know we got a lot of bad things going on around the world, he said. You know were all worried about Ukraine and the people there, its a shame whats going on. Well lose more in the first six months of overdoses in this country than theyll lose, and it doesnt seem like were much worried about it.

The senator also discussed the possible dangers of illegal fentanyl showing up in communities in the United States.

Its absolutely awful and nobody seems to be worried about it, he protested. We have got to do something about it and were going to lose, were going to have a catastrophe in this country of somebody putting [fentanyl] in our water supply, putting it in air systems, we got to wake up and smell the roses.

Tuberville also warned against ending Title 42, which would the end the quick expulsion of migrants at the border due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Were hearing at the end of March that Title 42 is going to expire, he said. Right now were seeing five to six thousand a week come across the border. I think that would probably enhance people coming across. Its going to be tougher to stop the drugs. Its going to be tougher to stop the human trafficking. Its really going to get bad.

Yaffee is a contributing writer to Yellowhammer News and hosts The Yaffee Program Weekdays 9-11am onWVNN. You can follow him on Twitter@Yaffee

Visit link:

Tuberville: 'We're losing the war on drugs down at the border' - Yellowhammer News

The House is poised to pass legislation this week that would legalize marijuana, just the latest example of the swiftly changing attitudes on drug laws that marks a near reversal from the Reagan-era war on drugs that also reverberated through the 1990s.

The bill legalizing marijuana has near-uniform support among Democrats and a top ally in Senate Majority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerWhy does Congress want China to win? Romney working on GOP counteroffer to new Dem COVID-19 funding plan Advocacy groups: Title 42 'undermines our trust in the administration' MORE (N.Y.), who has been aiming to introduce a similar measure this spring.

And its just one of several pieces of legislation that underlines the shift in Congresss attitude a change that has come about in part because of the way past drug laws have disproportionately hit minority communities.

This Congress represents a sea change, said Rep. Earl BlumenauerEarl BlumenauerHouse poised to pass bill legalizing marijuana House passes bill to end normal trade relations with Russia, Belarus Congress weighs WTO-legal ways to punish Russia MORE (D-Ore.), a co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus.

What we have seen is that the majority of people now realize that the war on drugs failed, Blumenauer told The Hill. Drugs are more accessible and cheaper and more potent and dangerous. Nobody won this war, except people who were involved with the drug dealers themselves.

The House has voted twice in the past year, most recently as part of legislation to bolster U.S. competitiveness, to enable legally operating cannabis businesses to use banking services and credit cards instead of having to function as cash-only.

On Thursday, the Senate unanimously passed a bill to expand scientific and medical research on marijuana and its compounds, including cannabidiol.

The flurry of action in Congress isnt limited to marijuana legalization.

The House passed a bipartisan bill last fall by a margin of 361-66 to eliminate the federal disparity in prison sentences for crack and powder cocaine offenses. All of the votes in opposition were from Republicans, but a majority of the House GOP overall joined all Democrats in support.

The issue was also raised in the Supreme Court confirmation hearings this week by Sen. John KennedyJohn Neely KennedyLouisiana Democrat running for US Senate smokes marijuana in campaign ad MORE (R-La.), who asked nominee Ketanji Brown JacksonKetanji Brown JacksonRomney planning 'a much deeper dive' on Jackson after opposing her for appeals court House passes bill to honor Ginsburg and O'Connor with Capitol statues Collins to have follow-up call with Ketanji Brown Jackson MORE if she agreed there should be no such disparity in sentencing.

The bill, titled the Eliminating a Quantifiably Unjust Application of the Law Act, or EQUAL Act, also has the support of law enforcement organizations like the Major Cities Chiefs Association and conservative groups like Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks.

Sen. Richard BurrRichard Mauze BurrHouse poised to pass bill legalizing marijuana The Memo: Democrats hope GOP overplayed hand in Jackson hearings Trump looks to bolster Ted Budd with North Carolina rally MORE (R-N.C.) became the10th Senate Republican to back the legislation, paving the way for likely passage in the upper chamber.Schumer and Sen. Joe ManchinJoe Manchin5 things to know about Biden's more centered '23 budget plans Biden budget proposal includes nearly billion increase for EPA Biden unveils .8 trillion budget proposal with tax hikes, spending boosts MORE (D-W.Va.), a frequent centrist swing vote, also signed on to the bill in recent days.

I think they understand we we've got to take a more innovative path. We need to understand addiction. We can't just incarcerate our way out of these problems. And we sure can't continue to turn a blind eye to an egregious injustice, like this crack-powder disparity, said Holly Harris, president of the Justice Action Network, which advocates for criminal justice reform.

The lower price of crack cocaine which is typically smoked meant that it has historically been more easily accessible to people in marginalized lower-income communities, compared to powder cocaine that is snorted through the nose.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission found in 2020 that 77 percent of crack cocaine trafficking offenders were Black, compared to 6 percent who were white.

The sentencing disparity stems from a 1986 law signed by then-President Reagan as part of the war on drugs that established a five-year minimum sentence for possession of at least five grams of crack cocaine. But an individual would have to possess at least 500 grams of powder cocaine to face the same sentence.

Lawmakers reduced the sentencing disparity for pending and future cases through the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act, but didnt fully eliminate it.

Schumers office didnt immediately respond to questions about when the bill could come up for a vote in the Senate.

The broader support in Congress for reversing the policies meant to crack down on drug use is reflective of public opinion.

Polling shows that the American public supports legalizing marijuana by large margins. A Pew Research Center poll last year found that 91 percent of U.S. adults believe that marijuana should be legal to at least some extent, with most stating it should be legal for medical and recreational use.

At least 37 states, four territories and the District of Columbia allow cannabis products for medical use, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Cannabis is also allowed for nonmedical use in 18 states, two territories and the nations capital.

Schumer has also been soliciting input from colleagues ahead of introducing a marijuana legalization bill, which he previously said could come this spring.

Cannabis industry advocates, meanwhile, have been urging lawmakers to pass the SAFE Banking Act to allow marijuana businesses to use banking services, since it is more likely to secure bipartisan support.

The legislation set for a House vote, titled the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act, would eliminate criminal penalties associated with marijuana.

It would further establish a process to expunge the convictions of nonviolent marijuana offenders and fund programs to help communities negatively affected by the war on drugs by imposing a federal tax on marijuana sales.

In a notice to lawmakers announcing the vote, House Majority Leader Steny HoyerSteny Hamilton HoyerHealth Care Biden budget preps for next pandemic This week: House set to vote on marijuana legalization bill House poised to pass bill legalizing marijuana MORE (D-Md.) hailed it as critical legislation that will restore justice to communities that have been disproportionately impacted by harsh penalties for possessing even small amounts of marijuana.

Only five Republicans backed the legislation when it came up for a House vote in December 2020, while six Democrats voted against it. One of those Republicans, the late Rep. Don YoungDonald (Don) Edwin YoungWhy Sarah Palin is still with us House poised to pass bill legalizing marijuana Alaska sets special election to replace late Rep. Don Young MORE (Alaska), who served as a Cannabis Caucus co-chair, died last week.

The margin might be tighter, Blumenauer said of next weeks vote. But I'm optimistic, and I'm just really pleased that the House Judiciary Committee moved forward with keeping this front and center.

Read the original post:

House poised to pass bill legalizing marijuana | TheHill - The Hill

By Udi Ofer

On November 23, 2021, following seven months of deliberation, the Princeton Cannabis Task Force issued a report unanimously recommending that the Princeton Council allow for cannabis dispensaries in town. Princetonians overwhelmingly support the legalization of cannabis, with 75 percent of Princeton voters saying yes to legalization on the 2021 ballot, a higher proportion than the 67 percent statewide who passed the referendum.

However, shortly after the release of the Task Force report, a vocal group of Princetonians have come out against cannabis sales within city limits. Its now time for the council to follow the recommendations of the task force and allow well-regulated dispensaries in town and to do so in a manner that will begin to repair the harm created by decades of a failed and discriminatory war on marijuana.

The 22-member Task Force, which Im a part of, had been appointed by the Princeton Council and included members nominated by the Princeton Police Department, Princeton Board of Health, Princeton Public Schools, and Princeton Civil Rights Commission, among other municipal stakeholders. From day one, it has operated with the utmost transparency, with all its meetings open to the public. Four meetings in-person and virtual were held specifically to solicit input from the public, welcoming all voices and opinions.

The task force based its unanimous recommendations on three primary considerations, guided by the knowledge that Princeton is a place where residents are passionate about confronting racial inequities and that Princeton needs to play its part not just in principle, but in ways that have the power to change things.

First, the task force sought to remove the stigma around a product that is now legal in New Jersey, but its prohibition was used to unfairly target and criminalize Black and Brown communities. Historically, New Jersey has had among the nations highest cannabis arrest rates, and with extreme racial disparities. Black people in New Jersey have been 3.5 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than white people, despite Black and white people consuming marijuana at similar rates. These racial disparities in arrests were not because of differences in consumption rates. Rather, they were driven by discriminatory criminal justice policies and practices.

While Princeton itself never had a large volume of arrests for marijuana possession, the trends in arrests did largely track the broader state patterns. Like the state, Princeton had persistent and even extreme racial disparities in cannabis arrests. From 1995 to 2019, there were racial disparities in arrests every year except for one, and from 2000-2013, Princeton had the second highest racial disparity in Mercer County. In several years, more than 50 percent of all marijuana possession arrests in town were of Black people. Princeton is about six percent Black.

Second, the task force concluded that allowing dispensaries would help to reduce underage access to cannabis by working to eliminate Princetons existing marijuana market, and by controlling who has access to it through a highly regulated market. Task Force members felt strongly about preventing youth usage of marijuana and ensuring safety. The task force believed that a regulated market would minimize the presence in the community of dangerous products as a result of the states strong product safety standards, making cannabis consumption safer for adult use as well and reducing the support for an unregulated market.

Finally, the task force sought to have Princeton proactively work to address the historical injustices created by the War on Drugs and its disproportionate impact on communities of color.

Research conducted by the ACLU has found that legalization on its own does not address racial disparities in enforcement. For this reason, the task force recommended that specific policies be implemented to prevent racial disparities in enforcement and to ensure equity in the cannabis industry. Moreover, it is vital that the revenue from cannabis dispensaries be devoted to Black and Brown communities historically targeted by the war on marijuana.

People arrested for cannabis in Princeton faced severe collateral consequences, including up to six months in jail, loss of employment and drivers licenses, and loss of immigration status, financial aid and public housing, among other consequences, which has devastated lives and hurt communities. For this reason, the task force recommended directing cannabis tax revenue and impact fees toward reparative community programs that benefit people who faced the brunt of the war on marijuana. The task force also stressed the importance of issuing policies that would lead to equity in future enforcement of the law and equity in the cannabis industry itself. The people who were harmed by a discriminatory war on marijuana should now be able to benefit from a legalized market both by benefiting from the revenue and being able to enter the industry itself.

For the sake of racial justice, public health, and common-sense good policy, the time has come for Princeton to allow cannabis dispensaries and to do it the right way, with equity at its core. Doing so would allow Princeton to emerge as an active participant, and even potentially a leader, in an important national issue that has deep ramifications for racial and social justice. Eighteen states and Washington, D.C., have legalized cannabis. Forty-three percent of U.S. adults live in a jurisdiction that has legalized the recreational use of marijuana. Ninety-one percent of Americans believe that marijuana should be legal for medicalor recreational use. There are thousands of dispensaries currently open across the nation and they have not seen the doomsday scenarios the detractors have painted.

This is the moment for Princeton to shine as an example of smart government that is motivated by the values of equity and justice. The council should follow the recommendations provided by its task force and allow for well-regulated dispensaries to open in Princeton and use the revenue to begin to repair the harm created by decades of a failed and discriminatory war on marijuana in our state and in our town.

Mr. Ofer is a member of the Princeton Cannabis Task Force and is the deputy national policy director at the ACLU.

Like Loading...

The rest is here:

Op-ed: Princeton voters said yes to cannabis overwhelmingly now let's begin to repair the harm caused by the failed war on drugs Princeton, NJ local...

Dlaminiwas speaking to his supporters after he was granted bail of R1500 in theRoodepoort Magistrates Court.

"Weare all cowards here, he said.

Why?Because I'm a coward, there are some places that I know sell drugs but we are notbigger cowards than our leaders even those in blue. Because when we take actionagainst those who take or sell drugs, they are the ones who arrest us."

Hefaces charges of housebreaking with the intent to steal on the 20th of March afterOperation Dudula members allegedly ransacked the Dobsonville home of localresident, Victor Ramerafe who community members accused of selling drugs.

READ:Court grants bail to Operation Dudula leader

Ramerafeopened a criminal case against Dlamini after the incident.

Weare going to find a way to liberate the police force. Let me now speak the wayyou want me to speak and I've been denying to speak this way, Dlamini said.

Whenwe take this country because that time is coming, we are going to move thepolice service back to being a police force.

Read more:

Dlamini vows to intensify Operation Dudula's 'war on drugs' - East Coast Radio

These days, everyone is throwing a hat into the ring of cannabis reform. Many ideas are floating around; some of them are not so hot. Last weeks federal legislative activity is a good example of this. Two things happened on the same day: the Senate unanimously passed the CMRE Act (Cannabidiol and Marihuana Research Expansion Act), and House leadership scheduled the MORE Act (Marijuana Opportunity and Expungement Act) for a floor vote next week. A lot of lazy reportage followed on this legislative activity, heralding federal cannabis reform.

Not all cannabis reform is a good thing. Some ideas are great; some are terrible; and some fall in between. The MORE Act falls into that final category. The MORE Act would remove marijuana from the federal Controlled Substances Act, along with a host of related activity. It first passed in late 2020; I gave a primer here. In that post, I also explained what the MORE Act does NOT do. It doesnt preempt prohibitionist state laws; it doesnt address the dysfunctional Food Drug & Cosmetic Act issues around cannabis comestible products; it doesnt automatically expunge non-violent marijuana convictions; etc. The perfect can be the enemy of the good, of course, and I still think passage of a cleaned up MORE Act could be better than the status quo. But that bill needs some work.

The CMRE Act, by contrast, is an irredeemable mess. Shane Pennington explains why in the excellent On Drugs Substack he hosts with Matthew Zorn. (If you arent an On Drugs subscriber, youre missing out on some very good stuff.) Shane explains, in a nutshell, that the CMRE Act contains a nonsensical and counterproductive definition of cannabinoids; and that, contrary to its stated purpose, it would actually make marijuana research harder. This is because non-economic barriers to cannabis research have been gutted already. What scientists really need from Congress is funding, not more legislation.

I appreciate that Congress continues to look at cannabis prohibition and related issues, especially given the Executive Branch failure of Biden and Harris to follow through with their campaign promises. It will be interesting to see if the CMRE Act gets any traction in the House, and vice versa for the MORE Act in the Senate. The CMRE Act seems to have better odds, if only because it originated in the upper chamber and addresses narrower subject matter. Also, the Senate has been unwilling or unable to entertain the MORE Act to date similar to the SAFE Banking Act, which has now passed a half dozen times in the House.

Cannabis reform can be confusing once you get past the fundamental truths that: 1) the War on Drugs has failed and 2) the War on Drugs has disproportionately affected minority groups. There are so many options moving forward from thereincluding how to begin. In the big picture, there are those who would approach things piecemeal, with discrete legislation on issues such as banking or cannabis research; and those who would approach things holistically, as through the MORE Act or other omnibus efforts.

I hope to see the MORE Act pass to start. Then, we go from there. Whatever happens will ultimately need some tuning, similar to what is happening now with hemp. But getting at the root of cannabis prohibition is better than hacking at tendrils and shoots. Thats especially true when were talking about bills like the CMRE Act.

Read the original post:

Not All Cannabis Reform is a Good Thing - Lexology