With the presidential election now less than a month away, Democratic candidate Barack Obama appears poised for victory, according to the m

Dear friends:

I get a lot of questions about what the presidential candidates have said or done on marijuana policy.

There are a lot of rumors about what Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. John McCain, and the other candidates may or may not have said about marijuana — and MPP specializes in that.

In fact, during the presidential primary campaign, MPP helped persuade all of the Democratic candidates and three of the Republican candidates to pledge to end the arrest of patients in states with medical marijuana laws.

If you're interested in knowing what the candidates have said and done, please watch our new video:

MPP is the only organization that's systematically influencing the presidential candidates to take positive positions on medical marijuana — and punishing those who don't. Would you please consider making a donation to support our work today?

Sincerely,

Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.

P.S. As I've mentioned in previous alerts, a major philanthropist has committed to match the first $3.0 million that MPP can raise from the rest of the planet in 2008. This means that your donation today will be doubled.

As public attitudes surrounding the war on drugs continue to evolve, we’ll begin to see more of this type of thing:

Containing parts of Kirkland, Redmond, Woodinville, and points east, the 45th Legislative District is hardly a hotbed of radicalism. But the two candidates for one of the district's two House seats share a position well out of the political mainstream: They both advocate wholesale changes to the War on Drugs.

In his time away from the capital, incumbent State Rep. Roger Goodman (D-Kirkland) heads the King County Bar Association's Drug Policy Project, where he works on moving drug policy's focus from crime and punishment to public health. His challenger, Toby Nixon (R-Kirkland), who held the seat from 2002 to 2006 before leaving to run for the state Senate (he lost his bid for an open seat to Eric Oemig), has spoken out in defense of Washington's medical marijuana law and pushed a bill requiring performance audits of drug-enforcement policies. [Seattle Weekly]

So will the candidates start arguing over who’s going to do more to end the drug war?

Noting that "some have observed that it's unfortunate that we're running against each other," Nixon adds that he's not sure he and Goodman have any disagreements on drug policy reform. But he wishes Goodman had followed his lead and pushed more drug policy reform bills as a legislator.

There you have it folks! The first candidate for public office to ever get called out for not trying hard enough to reform drug policy. This is not a coincidence, this is a sign of the times. It won’t be over tomorrow -- we’d be foolish to think that -- but we are entering a phase where we’ll begin to see and hear the drug policy debate in new forums. Once reform enters the mainstream political curriculum, the tone changes, the pot jokes start sounding immature and the things that actually matter can finally be discussed.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

A couple weeks ago, I noted the contradiction between Obama's call for reduced incarceration of first-time nonviolent drug offenders and his support for the heinous Byrne Grant program that has filled our prisons with petty offenders and subsidized mindblowing episodes of racist drug war excess.

These completing agendas in Obama’s crime platform deserve more discussion, thus Radley Balko has a piece at Slate that digs into this.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

Paul Armentano at NORML points to Sarah Palin's glorification of "Joe Sixpack" in the vice presidential debate. Indeed, one could scarcely overstate the naked hypocrisy of portraying daily drinkers as American heroes, while our nation continues to arrest nearly a million Americans each year for using marijuana.

I usually leave the alcohol analogy alone, assuming that it often speaks for itself, and when it doesn’t, the guys at SAFER can be counted on to point it out. But there are moments -- like hearing a major party VP candidate canonize alcohol users in a massively public forum – that remind us how truly discriminatory and fundamentally illogical this disparity is. If regulated sale is the best policy for alcohol, then it is the best policy for marijuana. And if people who drink a sixpack after work can be American heroes, so too are those who derive pleasure and relaxation from cannabis.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

According to a Zogby/Inter-American Dialogue poll released Thursday, more than three-quarters of likely voters polled said America's

Press Release

EMBARGOED UNTIL:                                                                 

Sept. 24, 2008, 11:00 AM                                                                   

Contact:  Monica Pratt Raffanel, (678) 261-8118 or (202) 822-6700                                                                               

Press teleconference today! Wednesday, September 24 at 11 a.m. ET

Dial In Number: (800) 593-9034

Passcode:  FAMM (3266)

NEW POLL: Americans Oppose Mandatory Minimums,

Will Vote for Candidates Who Feel the Same

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A new poll released today by Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) shows widespread support for ending mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent offenses and that Americans will vote for candidates who feel the same way. 

·         Fully 78 percent of Americans (nearly eight in 10) agree that courts – not Congress – should determine an individual’s prison sentence. 

·         Six in 10 (59 percent) oppose mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent offenders.

·         A majority of Americans (57 percent) polled said they would likely vote for a candidate for Congress who would eliminate all mandatory minimums for nonviolent crimes.

“Politicians have voted for mandatory minimum sentences so they could appear ‘tough on crime’ to their constituents. They insist that their voters support these laws, but it’s just not true,” says Julie Stewart, president and founder of FAMM.  “Republicans and Democrats support change and that should encourage members of Congress to reach across the aisle next year and work together to reform mandatory minimums.  Mandatory sentencing reform is not a partisan issue, but an issue about fairness and justice that transcends party lines.” 

During a time of financial crisis and uncertainty in the United States, reviewing current criminal justice policies and reforming mandatory minimums for nonviolent drug offenders is an option that Democratic and Republican lawmakers are considering.  Although neither is endorsing FAMM’s poll or report, Senator Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) are both concerned about America’s prison and sentencing system.

“America is locking up people at astonishing rates. In the name of ‘getting tough on crime,’ there are now 2.2 million Americans in federal, state, and local prisons and jails and over 7 million under some form of correction supervision, including probation and parole. We have the largest prison population in the world,” says Senator Jim Webb (D-Va.), who is chairing a symposium on criminal justice and prison issues in October.  “This growth is not a response to increasing crime rates, but a reliance on prisons and long mandatory sentences as the common response to crime. It is time for America’s leadership to realize what the public understands – our approach is costly, unfair and impractical.”

“Mandatory minimums wreak havoc on a logical system of sentencing guidelines,” says Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.). “Mandatory minimums turn today’s hot political rhetoric into the nightmares of many tomorrows for judges and families.”

"This poll suggests that a majority of Americans are open to re-examining this issue and moving to a court-driven sentencing model,” said Sparky Zivin, Research Director at StrategyOne.

The poll bolsters the findings of FAMM’s comprehensive new report, Correcting Course: Lessons from the 1970 Repeal of Mandatory Minimums, which describes how Congress repealed mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses in 1970 – and had no trouble getting reelected. 

“Our report and poll show that lawmakers can vote to reform mandatory minimums for nonviolent offenses and live to tell the story.  Republicans and Democrats alike don’t want these laws.  They don’t work, they cost taxpayers a fortune, and people believe Courts can sentence better than Congress can.  Another repeal of mandatory drug sentences isn’t just doable, it’s doable right now,” says Molly Gill, author of Correcting Course. 

The report details how Congress created mandatory minimum prison sentences for drug offenders in 1951 and repealed them in 1970 because the laws failed to stop drug abuse, addiction and trafficking. It also finds that after 20 years of experience, current mandatory minimums have failed as badly as those enacted in the 1950s.  Correcting Course concludes that mandatory minimum sentences:

• Have not discouraged drug use in the United States.

• Have not reduced drug trafficking.

• Have created soaring state and federal corrections costs.

• Impose substantial indirect costs on families by imprisoning spouses, parents, and breadwinners for lengthy periods.

• Are not applied evenly, disproportionately impacting minorities and resulting in vastly different sentences for equally blameworthy offenders.

• Undermine federalism by turning state-level offenses into federal crimes.

• Undermine separation of powers by usurping judicial discretion.

Eric Sterling, counsel to the House Judiciary Committee when mandatory sentences were enacted, says, “In 1986, we got stuck with some of the most punitive, least effective criminal sentencing laws ever created. Mandatory minimums haven’t stopped the drug trade.  They haven’t locked up the big dealers and importers.  They’re applied to small fries, not kingpins.  It’s a waste of taxpayer dollars to lock up a street-level dealer for 10 years when that money could be spent on treatment, drug courts, or going after the people bringing in boatloads of drugs every year.  Getting rid of mandatory minimums is about getting our priorities straight.”

Correcting Course includes comprehensive strategies for how Congress can repeal these ineffective laws today and better reflect the popular attitude among Americans, as brought out in the findings of the poll. 

“Mandatory minimums are among the worst criminal justice policies ever adopted in this country.  They treat all offenders the same, when the most sacred principle of American sentencing law is that punishment should fit the individual and the crime. Repealing these laws isn’t impossible – it’s been done before.  The next Congress should do it again,” says FAMM founder and president Julie Stewart.

FAMM’s poll was conducted by the independent public opinion research firm StrategyOne.  The survey was conducted by telephone between July 31 and August 3, 2008 with 1,000 adults randomly selected across the United States.  The margin of sampling error for the poll is plus or minus 3.1 percent for 95 out of 100 cases.

Families Against Mandatory Minimums is a national nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that supports fair and proportionate sentencing laws that allow judicial discretion while maintaining public safety. For more information on FAMM, visit www.famm.org or call Monica Pratt Raffanel at 678-261-8118.

###

Dear friends:

Want to take part in a groundbreaking experiment?  The background ...

Last year, the New Hampshire House of Representatives defeated — by an incredibly close 186-177 vote — a bill that would have legalized medical marijuana in the state. Just nine votes out of 400 members prevented this bill from passing.

Then, earlier this year, the New Hampshire House actually passed a bill — with a 191-143 vote — to decriminalize the personal possession of marijuana (and not just for medical use), before the state Senate snuffed the bill out.

New Hampshire is on the verge of passing medical marijuana legislation and marijuana decriminalization legislation.  With the November elections coming up in just six weeks, we need to ensure that good state legislators get reelected ... and some bad ones get unelected ... to increase our level of support in the New Hampshire Legislature.

THE EXPERIMENT

Is the marijuana policy reform community ready to become a serious player in state legislative races?

Because New Hampshire legislative districts are so small, it doesn't cost much to become a major player in these races and help good candidates win. This is a state where we could really make a difference by generating just a few dozen donations to each good candidate.

Intrigued? On this site, we've listed the supportive candidates who are in the tightest races — and whose campaigns are therefore the most crucial to passing our legislation early next year.  Our Web site also makes it easy for people to donate to their campaigns.

Other interest groups do this sort of thing all the time, in order to ensure that candidates who support their issues get elected. We're wondering if the marijuana policy reform community is interested in playing at this level, as well. (By the way, this is nonpartisan project that includes Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian candidates.)

Most candidates for the New Hampshire House raise and spend only a few thousand dollars on their entire campaign. So just a few dozen donations to each candidate from around the country will make a huge impression on the candidate — and a huge difference in the candidate's campaign.

If this experiment works and raises money to help these good candidates win their races, then MPP will likely roll this out in two or three states in the next election cycle. 

I want to thank you in advance if you choose to participate in this experiment!

Sincerely,

Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.

P.S. As I've mentioned in previous alerts, a major philanthropist has committed to match the first $3.0 million that MPP can raise from the rest of the planet in 2008. This means that any donation you make to MPP today will be doubled.

At a campaign appearance in Jacksonville, FL, Barack Obama proposed federal drug war funding as a solution to the city’s problems with violent crime:

I will ensure that we fund the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program, which has been critical to creating the anti-gang and anti-drug task forces our communities need. And I will make sure our federal law enforcement agencies are equipped to fight terrorism and crime by ensuring that the FBI and DEA are appropriately staffed and that federal-local law enforcement task forces have the support they need. [Florida Times-Union]

He said the same thing in New Orleans, thus it’s becoming increasingly clear that Obama really does believe that aggressive drug enforcement can function as a crime control mechanism. For a quick tutorial on how absurd that is, I’d refer him to Mexico, where President Calderon’s attempted crackdown has escalated violence throughout the country with no end in sight.

Moreover, Obama’s praise for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grants ignores that program’s role in producing some of the most egregious civil rights catastrophes in modern drug war history. Byrne funding was responsible for the notorious fiascos in Tulia and Hearne, TX, in which large numbers of innocent African-Americans were rounded up and framed for drug crimes. Overwhelming abuse of the program led Texas to ban multi-jurisdictional drug task forces entirely.

Obama’s remarks yesterday are therefore simply impossible to reconcile with his calls for "shifting the paradigm" in the war on drugs. He has frequently called attention to the over-incarceration of non-violent drug offenders, yet now pledges to continue the exact tactics that have played such a prominent role in producing our alarming prison population. As Radley Balko explains:

Because most Byrne grants are also tied directly to drug arrests, they encourage local police departments to use their manpower and resources on nonviolent drug offenses instead of more serious crimes like rape, robbery, or murder.

It seems Obama is trying to have it both ways, scoring points for forward-thinking ideas on incarceration at the national level, while simultaneously promising more policing and drug enforcement to audiences that are concerned about crime. I’d still prefer to think he’s serious about working to reduce our prison population, but he won’t get far without looking at the way our drug laws are enforced. If he plans to dangle federal drug war dollars in front of bloodthirsty local narcotics task forces, you can bet those guys will do what they do best: fill our prisons as fast as they can with anyone they can get their hands on.

That’s just how the drug war works. Politicians fund prohibition. Prohibition funds violence. Politicians feel pressured and fund more prohibition. If Obama wants to change the outcome, he’ll have to change the process.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

Here is the link to "2008 Presidential Candidates’ Platforms on Criminal Justice" prepared by the Sentencing Project in March 2008: http://www.sentencingproject.org/tmp/File/PresidentialCandidatesPlatform....

Dear friends:

I get a lot of questions about what the presidential candidates have said or done on marijuana policy.

There are a lot of rumors about what Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. John McCain, and the other candidates may or may not have said about marijuana — and MPP specializes in that.

In fact, during the presidential primary campaign, MPP helped persuade all of the Democratic candidates and three of the Republican candidates to pledge to end the arrest of patients in states with medical marijuana laws.

If you're interested in knowing what the candidates have said and done, please watch our new video:

MPP is the only organization that's systematically influencing the presidential candidates to take positive positions on medical marijuana — and punishing those who don't. Would you please consider making a donation to support our work today?

Sincerely,

Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.

P.S. As I've mentioned in previous alerts, a major philanthropist has committed to match the first $3.0 million that MPP can raise from the rest of the planet in 2008. This means that your donation today will be doubled.

PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP NEEDED

********************PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE************************

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #384 - Sunday, 7 September 2008

"What if major party nominees Barack Obama and John McCain were pressed to state their positions on drugs and incarceration?" writes syndicated columnist Neal Peirce.

Please raise the issue with those running for public office and by sending letters to the editor. Please ask your local newspapers to print the column below.

As MAP's volunteer activists find this column printed in other newspapers they will be listed at the top of this webpage http://www.mapinc.org/author/Neal+Peirce

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

Contact: opinion@seattletimes.com

Pubdate: Sun, 7 Sep 2008
Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Copyright: 2008 Washington Post Writers Group
Author: Neal Peirce, Syndicated Columnist

REAL COMMANDER NEEDED FOR THE WAR ON DRUGS

Will America's ill-starred "war on drugs" and its expanding prison culture make it into the presidential campaign?

Standard wisdom says "no way."

We may have the world's highest rate of incarceration -- with only 5 percent of global population, 25 percent of prisoners worldwide. We may be throwing hundreds of thousands of nonviolent drug offenders, many barely of age, behind bars -- one reason a stunning one out of every 100 Americans is now imprisoned. We may have created a huge "prison-industrial complex" of prison builders, contractors and swollen criminal justice bureaucracies.

Federal, state and local outlays for law enforcement and incarceration are costing, according to a Senate committee estimate, a stunning $200 billion annually, siphoning off funds from enterprises that actually build our future: universities, schools, health, infrastructure.

We are reaping the whirlwind of "get tough" on crime statutes ranging from "three strikes you're in" to mandatory sentences to reincarcerating recent prisoners for minor parole violations. And every year we're seeing hundreds of thousands of convicts leave prison with scant chances of being employed, no right to vote, no access to public housing, high levels of addiction, illiteracy and mental illness. Overwhelmed by the odds against them, at least 50 percent are rearrested within two years.

A serious set of problems, a shadow over our national future? No doubt. But do our politicians talk much about alternatives? No way -- they typically find it too risky to be attacked as "soft on crime."

But let's imagine -- what if major party nominees Barack Obama and John McCain were pressed to state their positions on drugs and incarceration?

I've combed through statements by both men. My early reading is that with McCain, there'd be a thin chance of reform, but under Obama, much brighter prospects.

It is true that both men favored -- Obama actually co-sponsored -- the federal Second Chance Act, passed this year, which provides up to $360 million to support job training, mentors and counseling for inmates released from custody.

But McCain has been routinely "hawkish" on drug policy, endorsing higher penalties for drug-selling, supporting the death penalty for drug kingpins, and opposing any softening of laws forbidding marijuana use, which he characterizes as a dangerous "gateway drug."

Obama, by contrast, expresses serious concern that at 2 million-plus inmates, "we have by far the largest prison population, per capita, of any place on earth." He endorses full justice and imprisonment for dangerous criminals but a far more nuanced approach to drug cases in particular.

"Anybody who sees the devastating impact of the drug trade in the inner cities, or the methamphetamine trade in rural communities, knows that this is a huge problem," he recently told a Rolling Stone interviewer. "I believe in shifting the paradigm, shifting the model, so that we can focus on a more public-health approach."

During the primary season Obama spoke with special concern about nonviolent drug offenders, many as young as 18 to 20: "The worst thing we can do is to lock them up for a long period of time, without any education if they're functionally illiterate, without any skills or training. They're now convicted felons" -- perhaps 25 or 26 years old -- "out on the streets and can't be hired by anybody."

His conclusion: The more focus put on diversion programs, drug courts, treatment of substance abusers, and "encourage training and skills and literacy ... the more effective we are in reducing recidivism rates."

Obama is clearly not yet willing to discuss lifting prohibitions on marijuana or other drugs. But he would seem open to lead the country in a serious debate about our drug and incarceration policies -- a dramatic break from recent presidencies, both Republican and Democratic.

Arguably, that's precisely the discussion the nation needs. America's prisoner total has tripled over the last two decades, with systems bursting at the seams -- California, for example, at 175 percent of capacity, Alabama at 200 percent. Yet North Carolina anticipates 1,000 more prisoners a year; Pennsylvania, 1,500; Arizona, 2,200; Florida 3,000.

Small wonder major prisoner re-entry and diversion facilities for less serious offenders are being set up in Kansas, Michigan, Georgia and other states. California this November votes on a landmark "nonviolent offender rehabilitation" initiative designed to divert thousands from the state's bloated $10-billion-a-year prison system.

It's high time, says Georgia Corrections Commissioner Jim Donald, "to differentiate between those offenders we are 'afraid of' and those we are just 'mad at.' "

Talk about a serious national issue on which we could use some presidential leadership -- not dictating precise answers, but moving us to debate alternatives. It's been 20 years since drugs and prisons have even been mentioned in the televised presidential debates. Maybe not just Obama but McCain too could surprise us with some fresh ideas and promise of leadership as president. But we probably won't hear this unless reporters press the issue.

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

Additional suggestions for writing LTEs are at our Media Activism Center: http://www.mapinc.org/resource/#guides

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

PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER

Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent letter list (sentlte@mapinc.org) if you are subscribed, or by emailing a copy to heath@mapinc.org if you are not subscribed. Your letter will then be forwarded to the list so others may learn from your efforts.

Subscribing to the Sent LTE list ( sentlte@mapinc.org ) will help you to review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing efforts.

To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see: http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form

Election 2008

Dear friends,

Last week I wrote to you from the Democratic National Convention. This week I’d like to share some insights regarding the Republican National Convention.
 
It's hard to know what to make of Senator McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. She's admitted to smoking marijuana -- but then again that's also true of every Democratic nominee for president since 1992, as well as Newt Gingrich, Clarence Thomas and lots of other prominent Republicans.  As for the current president, he never admitted it but others did so on his behalf.  We've practically reached the stage where smoking a joint at some point in one's life seems a prerequisite for anyone under the age of 65 aspiring to national office.

Alaska has legalized marijuana for medical use. So have 11 other states. Yet, the federal government continues to persecute patients and caregivers in those states.  I don't think Governor Palin has made clear what she thinks of this, notwithstanding the fact that she represents a state and a political party that believe strongly in the rights of states to regulate their own affairs.  It would be nice if some journalist posed this question to her.

I've yet to find much information about Governor Palin's views and record on drug policy. She  has said that marijuana should be illegal -- although presumably she's glad she never was arrested for her own use.  But she's also made clear that marijuana should not be a top law enforcement priority. That's good -- and probably politically wise given that close to 50 percent of Alaskans think marijuana should be legal.

As for Senator McCain, it's hard to be optimistic that he'll do much good on drug policy.  He has publicly mocked medical marijuana patients.  Back in 1999, he introduced a bill that would have banned methadone maintenance as an approved treatment for heroin addiction, notwithstanding the scientific consensus that it is by far the most effective treatment available. The only good news was his recent speech at the Urban League where he spoke in favor of diverting more nonviolent drug law offenders to treatment instead of prison.

What I find most interesting this week -- from a drug policy perspective -- has nothing to do with what's on the main stage.  Just down the road in Minneapolis, Republican Congressman Ron Paul is holding a shadow convention with 10,000 of his supporters.   No one ever stirred up the libertarian wing of the Republican Party the way he did during the primaries.  It was good to have him holding forth on ending drug prohibition the way that William Buckley, Milton Friedman, former Secretary of State George Shultz and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson have in years and decades past.   

And then there's the campaign of Libertarian Presidential Candidate Bob Barr, a former Republican Congressman.  He used to be one of the Republican Party’s biggest cheerleaders for the war on drugs but he’s now embraced drug policy reform in a big way.  He and I were invited to debate one another at Fordham Law School last year but Bob Barr couldn't find enough ways to agree with me.    

There's no question the Republican Party is evolving as its libertarian wing gains strength.  And it's our job at the Drug Policy Alliance to meld the libertarian sentiments on the right with the social justice passions on the left into an ever more powerful movement for ending the nation's longest and most costly war -- the war on drugs.   

Sincerely,

Ethan Nadelmann
Executive Director
Drug Policy Alliance Network

(This message was reprinted by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

Democratic Party presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama has famously confessed to teenage drug use in his published memoirs. Now, with Republican presidential candidate Sen.

We know she used marijuana when it was legal in Alaska. And we know that she hypocritically claims to oppose legalization. But Sarah Palin is also governor of a state that’s had a medical marijuana program for ten years. How does she feel about that?

Does Sarah Palin share John McCain’s open hostility towards seriously ill patients who use marijuana on the advice of their doctors?

Frankly, I highly doubt Palin agrees with this. It’s bad politics for her in Alaska and, for that matter, everywhere else as well. If pressed, she’ll be forced to take the party line, but that won’t go well for her. Palin can’t conveniently defend federal supremacy over state medical marijuana laws because she’s already argued that her own past marijuana use was legal in Alaska. She can’t defend medical marijuana raids without labeling herself a criminal.

The point isn’t that there’s anything damaging about her admitted marijuana use or that people who admit trying marijuana become obligated to support medical access. Neither is true. The point, rather, is that Palin’s personal story highlights the absurdity of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. telling people all the way up in Alaska what sorts of petty drug laws they ought to have. She doesn’t want to go there. It’s a terrible jumping-off point for initiating a defense of federal authority to arrest sick people.

That’s why the Obama campaign would be smart to apply pressure here. Public support for medical marijuana is overwhelming and the video of McCain literally turning his back on a wheelchair bound patient is compelling. This debate polarizes independent and libertarian voters in Obama’s favor, while forcing McCain to defend another unpopular Bush policy. Biden’s obnoxious drug war background also becomes a counterintuitive asset, as he can ably deflect any shrill attacks from the law & order crowd on the right.

As the democrats clamor for opportunities to puncture the narrative of McCain/Palin as a "reform" ticket, there is nothing to lose, and potentially much to gain by directly challenging McCain’s deeply unpopular views on medical marijuana.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

The Chicago Tribune on Biden:

He has proven to be a reliable moderate on crime issues--particularly where narcotics are concerned--and was a principal author of the 1994 crime bill which sought to put 100,000 more police officers on the streets through a federal grant program. That bill also expanded the reach of the federal death penalty.

Um, Biden coined the term "drug czar" and created ONDCP, the propaganda wing of the federal drug war. He tried to one-up the Republican anti-drug plan by calling for larger foreign drug war investments. He authored the RAVE Act to allow federal prosecution of property owners who fail to successfully prevent drug use. He championed research into biological warfare techniques to eradicate South American drug cultivation, even after experts said it was way too dangerous to even consider. He was last seen proposing ridiculous drug war legislation only a month ago. Really, the list just goes on and on.

So no, Joe Biden is not a "moderate" when it comes to crime issues. His hard-line authoritarian record speaks for itself, runs out of breath, and then speaks for itself some more. To call him a "moderate" is just ignorant and wrong, to the point of utterly trivializing the word and conjuring a wretched spectacle of what it would take to earn a more fitting description of his extensive jail-mongering credentials.

I can only assume this profound mischaracterization of Biden's record was arrived at through the tired assumption that democrats are "soft" on crime, republicans are "tough," and therefore "moderates" are democrats who support harsh laws. Joe Biden is exactly the reason such stereotypes should be avoided by responsible journalists.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

Among the likely choices for Obama's running mate, Joe Biden was not the person reformers were hoping to see on the democratic ticket. Radley Balko sums up Biden's drug war credentials:

…from a policy perspective, it’s a disaster. Biden has sponsored more damaging drug war legislation than any Democrat in Congress. Hate the way federal prosecutors use RICO laws to take aim at drug offenders? Thank Biden. How about the abomination that is federal asset forfeiture laws? Thank Biden. Think federal prosecutors have too much power in drug cases? Thank Biden. Think the title of a “Drug Czar” is sanctimonious and silly? Thank Biden, who helped create the position (and still considers it an accomplishment worth boasting about). Tired of the ridiculous steroids hearings in Congress? thank Biden, who led the effort to make steroids a Schedule 3 drug, and has been among the blowhardiest of the blowhards when it comes to sports and performance enhancing drugs. Biden voted in favor of using international development aid for drug control (think plan Columbia, plan Afghanistan, and other meddling anti-drug efforts that have only fostered loathing of America, backlash, and unintended consequences). Oh, and he was also the chief sponsor of 2004’s horrendous RAVE Act.

On the other hand, Biden has recently spoken out against the crack/powder sentencing disparity and introduced legislation to address that issue. Pete Guither also notes that Biden's votes on civil liberties issues have consistently improved over the years, which may be a sign that he's evolving in his thinking. But I see no evidence that Biden has ever stepped back in any meaningful sense from his rabid drug warring ways. If he's made any philosophical realignments on drug policy in general, he hasn't said so out loud.

Thus the silver-lining may be that as Vice President, Biden would no longer be serving on the judiciary committee, where he's exerted his influence in the form of the various atrocities outlined above. As VP he'd technically be losing his authority over drug policy issues, except to whatever extent Obama may seek his advice when selecting the drug czar and so forth. It's certainly possible that Obama's more enlightened views would prevail within his administration, or even that Biden's "tough on crime" credentials could provide cover for reform, but Biden would be a strange ingredient in the behind-the-scenes reform agenda that's so often attributed to Obama by liberal reformers. It was bad enough when Obama softened his reform positions to avoid attacks from the right. Will he now begin watching his step around his own running mate?

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

Former Republican Congressman and current Libertarian Party Candidate for president Bob Barr Monday issued a statement criticizing the widely

Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr is the first presidential hopeful to speak out regarding the brutal drug raid in Berwyn Heights, MD that resulted in the death of the mayor's two dogs:

The former Republican Congressman from Georgia released a statement on his presidential campaign website about the July 29 Prince George's police and sheriff's raid on the home of Berwyn Heights Mayor Cheye Calvo.
…

The raid, he wrote, "illustrates how the drug war threatens the liberties of all Americans."

He said he believed that law enforcement has become more arrogant and less accountable, usually with very little public attention, and promises that as president, he will improve the situation.

"As president I will ensure that federal law enforcement agencies set a good example for the rest of the country," he said. "In a Barr administration, government officials will never forget that it is a free people they are protecting." [Washington Post]

I'm still getting used to hearing words like these from former drug warrior Bob Barr, but I'll take it. Barr, despite his unfortunate history, is now speaking out against abusive drug war policing with a vigor unmatched, or even attempted, by the major party candidates.

Unfortunately, we can be reasonably sure we won’t hear a word about this from Obama or McCain. Sure, it is an ugly national controversy with a fairly obvious right and wrong side. And yes, a careful statement promising to defend the rights of innocent, everyday people against government abuse would be politically safe, in and of itself. After all, there's nothing anti-police about standing up for professionalism in law-enforcement.

But implicit in all this is the central question of how far we as a society are willing to push the limits of peace and freedom in the name of a war on drugs that has already exhausted many of us to the point of unrestrained bitterness. It's a conversation that can't be avoided once Cheye Calvo's name is spoken and one which the major party candidates remain hesitant to explore. Their silence becomes increasingly hard to explain as it becomes steadily more apparent each day that the drug war blood bath sometimes doesn't discriminate as well as it's supposed to.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

From a recent interview in Rolling Stone:

The War on Drugs has cost taxpayers $500 billion since 1973. Nearly 500,000 people are behind bars on drug charges today, yet drugs are as available as ever. Do you plan to continue the War on Drugs, or will you make some significant change in course?

Anybody who sees the devastating impact of the drug trade in the inner cities, or the methamphetamine trade in rural communities, knows that this is a huge problem. I believe in shifting the paradigm, shifting the model, so that we focus more on a public-health approach. I can say this as an ex-smoker: We've made enormous progress in making smoking socially unacceptable. You think about auto safety and the huge success we've had in getting people to fasten their seat belts.

The point is that if we're putting more money into education, into treatment, into prevention and reducing the demand side, then the ways that we operate on the criminal side can shift. I would start with nonviolent, first-time drug offenders. The notion that we are imposing felonies on them or sending them to prison, where they are getting advanced degrees in criminality, instead of thinking about ways like drug courts that can get them back on track in their lives -- it's expensive, it's counterproductive, and it doesn't make sense.

I've heard it said, and I agree, that this is a solid response from a mainstream politician on the presidential campaign trail. But I also think it simply reflects a realistic summary of what the centrist, mainstream view on U.S. drug policy sounds like. In other words, rather than commending Obama for not spouting tired war metaphors, let us welcome the new status quo.

We've reached a point at which this type of rhetoric is probably the most politically palatable perspective a serious candidate could offer. We've heard McCain making some similar points, and while I certainly won't be holding my breath, I think the possibility exists that we'll make it through the entire campaign without witnessing any serious controversy surrounding the concept that our drug war needs a major ideological makeover.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)