Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Monday, June 17, 2013
Letters to Congress on ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition
Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2013
By reading the letters to the representatives in support of ending cannabis prohibition and those against it, we can better inform ourselves in our quest to end cannabis prohibition. While some are well-articulated and factual, while others are uninformed, poorly worded.
In order to turn the tides, factual information and activism will be needed in order to turn the tides of inaction and misinformation. Get out and urge your representative to represent the will of the people.
By reading the letters to the representatives in support of ending cannabis prohibition and those against it, we can better inform ourselves in our quest to end cannabis prohibition. While some are well-articulated and factual, while others are uninformed, poorly worded.
In order to turn the tides, factual information and activism will be needed in order to turn the tides of inaction and misinformation. Get out and urge your representative to represent the will of the people.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Racially Biased Arrests for Pot
Editorial by the New York Times Editorial Board
Researchers have long known that African-Americans are more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites, even though studies have repeatedly shown that the two groups use the drug at similar rates.
New federal data, included in a study by the American Civil Liberties Union, now shows that the problem of racially biased arrests is far more extensive that was previously known — and is getting worse. The costly, ill-advised “war on marijuana” might fairly be described as a tool of racial oppression.
The study, based on law enforcement data from 50 states and the District of Columbia, is the most detailed of its kind so far. Marijuana arrests have risen sharply over the last two decades and now make up about half of all drug arrests in the United States. Of the more than eight million marijuana arrests made between 2001 and 2010, nearly 90 percent were for possession. There were nearly 900,000 marijuana arrests in 2010 — 300,000 more than for all violent crimes combined.
The 'Stop and Frisk' program carried it out in NYC, which targets almost exclusively minorities lead to the higher rates of arrest. The marijuana arrest rate for minorities is disproportional skewed do to this practice.
Researchers have long known that African-Americans are more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites, even though studies have repeatedly shown that the two groups use the drug at similar rates.
New federal data, included in a study by the American Civil Liberties Union, now shows that the problem of racially biased arrests is far more extensive that was previously known — and is getting worse. The costly, ill-advised “war on marijuana” might fairly be described as a tool of racial oppression.
The study, based on law enforcement data from 50 states and the District of Columbia, is the most detailed of its kind so far. Marijuana arrests have risen sharply over the last two decades and now make up about half of all drug arrests in the United States. Of the more than eight million marijuana arrests made between 2001 and 2010, nearly 90 percent were for possession. There were nearly 900,000 marijuana arrests in 2010 — 300,000 more than for all violent crimes combined.
The 'Stop and Frisk' program carried it out in NYC, which targets almost exclusively minorities lead to the higher rates of arrest. The marijuana arrest rate for minorities is disproportional skewed do to this practice.
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Friday, May 25, 2012
Newark Mayor Cory Booker Declares Drug War ‘A Failure,’ Endorses Medical Marijuana
Booker supports treatment over incarceration, saying the drug war was costing billions and destroying lives. He stated the high percentage of blacks in New Jersey's prisons, writing that they make up 60 percent of the jail population, despite being 15 percent of the state's population.
Drug war is a failure costing billions of tax dollars annually AND destroying lives, plus it has a glaring racial component @LibProgressive
— Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) May 23, 2012
In NJ blacks are about 15% of population but over 60% of prison population and DRUGS fuels much of the incarceration @LibProgressive
— Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) May 23, 2012
So yes we need to radically change the conversation from INCARCERATION to what will really end this national nightmare. @LibProgressive
— Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) May 23, 2012
I fear legalizing it all would lead 2 more addiction RT @msupolitical: last thing I want is giving more power 2 govt. legalize it all period
— Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) May 23, 2012
However, I’m with you on medical marijuana. And NJ should do more to make it real for those who need it@msupolitical
— Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) May 23, 2012
Sunday, December 25, 2011
58% of MA voters support legal marijuana, THC Show
Discussing news on MassCann/NORML's MA marijuana legalization poll and Prospect Hill new CD "Impact" and their big Wilbur Theare show. Also discuss Carmelita, Bay State Rock WAAF.
Jury Refuses to Convict Anyone for Marijuana Possession!
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No
Jurors Can Say No - NYTimes.com
IF you are ever on a jury in a marijuana case, I recommend that you vote “not guilty” — even if you think the defendant actually smoked pot, or sold it to another consenting adult. As a juror, you have this power under the Bill of Rights; if you exercise it, you become part of a proud tradition of American jurors who helped make our laws fairer.
The information I have just provided — about a constitutional doctrine called “jury nullification” — is absolutely true. But if federal prosecutors in New York get their way, telling the truth to potential jurors could result in a six-month prison sentence.
Earlier this year, prosecutors charged Julian P. Heicklen, a retired chemistry professor, with jury tampering because he stood outside the federal courthouse in Manhattan providing information about jury nullification to passers-by. Given that I have been recommending nullification for nonviolent drug cases since 1995 — in such forums as The Yale Law Journal, “60 Minutes” and YouTube — I guess I, too, have committed a crime.
The prosecutors who charged Mr. Heicklen said that “advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without constitutional protections no matter where it occurred.” The prosecutors in this case are wrong. The First Amendment exists to protect speech like this — honest information that the government prefers citizens not know.
Laws against jury tampering are intended to deter people from threatening or intimidating jurors. To contort these laws to justify punishing Mr. Heicklen, whose court-appointed counsel describe him as “a shabby old man distributing his silly leaflets from the sidewalk outside a courthouse,” is not only unconstitutional but unpatriotic. Jury nullification is not new; its proponents have included John Hancock and John Adams.
The doctrine is premised on the idea that ordinary citizens, not government officials, should have the final say as to whether a person should be punished. As Adams put it, it is each juror’s “duty” to vote based on his or her “own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”
In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled that jurors had no right, during trials, to be told about nullification. The court did not say that jurors didn’t have the power, or that they couldn’t be told about it, but only that judges were not required to instruct them on it during a trial. Since then, it’s been up to scholars like me, and activists like Mr. Heicklen, to get the word out.
Nullification has been credited with helping to end alcohol prohibition and laws that criminalized gay sex. Last year, Montana prosecutors were forced to offer a defendant in a marijuana case a favorable plea bargain after so many potential jurors said they would nullify that the judge didn’t think he could find enough jurors to hear the case. (Prosecutors now say they will remember the actions of those jurors when they consider whether to charge other people with marijuana crimes.)
There have been unfortunate instances of nullification. Racist juries in the South, for example, refused to convict people who committed violent acts against civil-rights activists, and nullification has been used in cases involving the use of excessive force by the police. But nullification is like any other democratic power; some people may try to misuse it, but that does not mean it should be taken away from everyone else.
How one feels about jury nullification ultimately depends on how much confidence one has in the jury system. Based on my experience, I trust jurors a lot. I first became interested in nullification when I prosecuted low-level drug crimes in Washington in 1990. Jurors here, who were predominantly African-American, nullified regularly because they were concerned about racially selective enforcement of the law.
Across the country, crime has fallen, but incarceration rates remain at near record levels. Last year, the New York City police made 50,000 arrests just for marijuana possession. Because prosecutors have discretion over whether to charge a suspect, and for what offense, they have more power than judges over the outcome of a case. They tend to throw the book at defendants, to compel them to plead guilty in return for less harsh sentences. In some jurisdictions, like Washington, prosecutors have responded to jurors who are fed up with their draconian tactics by lobbying lawmakers to take away the right to a jury trial in drug cases. That is precisely the kind of power grab that the Constitution’s framers were so concerned about.
In October, the Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, asked at a Senate hearing about the role of juries in checking governmental power, seemed open to the notion that jurors “can ignore the law” if the law “is producing a terrible result.” He added: “I’m a big fan of the jury.” I’m a big fan, too. I would respectfully suggest that if the prosecutors in New York bring fair cases, they won’t have to worry about jury nullification. Dropping the case against Mr. Heicklen would let citizens know that they are as committed to justice, and to free speech, as they are to locking people up.
IF you are ever on a jury in a marijuana case, I recommend that you vote “not guilty” — even if you think the defendant actually smoked pot, or sold it to another consenting adult. As a juror, you have this power under the Bill of Rights; if you exercise it, you become part of a proud tradition of American jurors who helped make our laws fairer.
The information I have just provided — about a constitutional doctrine called “jury nullification” — is absolutely true. But if federal prosecutors in New York get their way, telling the truth to potential jurors could result in a six-month prison sentence.
Earlier this year, prosecutors charged Julian P. Heicklen, a retired chemistry professor, with jury tampering because he stood outside the federal courthouse in Manhattan providing information about jury nullification to passers-by. Given that I have been recommending nullification for nonviolent drug cases since 1995 — in such forums as The Yale Law Journal, “60 Minutes” and YouTube — I guess I, too, have committed a crime.
The prosecutors who charged Mr. Heicklen said that “advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without constitutional protections no matter where it occurred.” The prosecutors in this case are wrong. The First Amendment exists to protect speech like this — honest information that the government prefers citizens not know.
Laws against jury tampering are intended to deter people from threatening or intimidating jurors. To contort these laws to justify punishing Mr. Heicklen, whose court-appointed counsel describe him as “a shabby old man distributing his silly leaflets from the sidewalk outside a courthouse,” is not only unconstitutional but unpatriotic. Jury nullification is not new; its proponents have included John Hancock and John Adams.
The doctrine is premised on the idea that ordinary citizens, not government officials, should have the final say as to whether a person should be punished. As Adams put it, it is each juror’s “duty” to vote based on his or her “own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”
In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled that jurors had no right, during trials, to be told about nullification. The court did not say that jurors didn’t have the power, or that they couldn’t be told about it, but only that judges were not required to instruct them on it during a trial. Since then, it’s been up to scholars like me, and activists like Mr. Heicklen, to get the word out.
Nullification has been credited with helping to end alcohol prohibition and laws that criminalized gay sex. Last year, Montana prosecutors were forced to offer a defendant in a marijuana case a favorable plea bargain after so many potential jurors said they would nullify that the judge didn’t think he could find enough jurors to hear the case. (Prosecutors now say they will remember the actions of those jurors when they consider whether to charge other people with marijuana crimes.)
There have been unfortunate instances of nullification. Racist juries in the South, for example, refused to convict people who committed violent acts against civil-rights activists, and nullification has been used in cases involving the use of excessive force by the police. But nullification is like any other democratic power; some people may try to misuse it, but that does not mean it should be taken away from everyone else.
How one feels about jury nullification ultimately depends on how much confidence one has in the jury system. Based on my experience, I trust jurors a lot. I first became interested in nullification when I prosecuted low-level drug crimes in Washington in 1990. Jurors here, who were predominantly African-American, nullified regularly because they were concerned about racially selective enforcement of the law.
Across the country, crime has fallen, but incarceration rates remain at near record levels. Last year, the New York City police made 50,000 arrests just for marijuana possession. Because prosecutors have discretion over whether to charge a suspect, and for what offense, they have more power than judges over the outcome of a case. They tend to throw the book at defendants, to compel them to plead guilty in return for less harsh sentences. In some jurisdictions, like Washington, prosecutors have responded to jurors who are fed up with their draconian tactics by lobbying lawmakers to take away the right to a jury trial in drug cases. That is precisely the kind of power grab that the Constitution’s framers were so concerned about.
In October, the Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, asked at a Senate hearing about the role of juries in checking governmental power, seemed open to the notion that jurors “can ignore the law” if the law “is producing a terrible result.” He added: “I’m a big fan of the jury.” I’m a big fan, too. I would respectfully suggest that if the prosecutors in New York bring fair cases, they won’t have to worry about jury nullification. Dropping the case against Mr. Heicklen would let citizens know that they are as committed to justice, and to free speech, as they are to locking people up.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Part 1 & 2 Jack Cole at Cannabis Colloquium
Friday, December 2, 2011
Explorer: Marijuana Nation
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Cannabis: The Evil Weed?
Addiction specialist Dr John Marsden discovers that modern science is finally beginning to find answers to these questions. John traces the cannabis plants' birthplace in Kazakhstan; finds the origins of our sensitivity to cannabis in the simple sea squirt; and finds out just what it does to our brains.
He meets people who have been changed by this drug in drastically different ways -- from those whose lives have been shattered to those who lives have been revived.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Marijuana USA
CNBC's "Marijuana USA" goes inside a flourishing medical pot industry. In Colorado, the demon weed is rebranded as a natural herbal remedy with healing powers that even respectable citizens can enjoy. We meet two restaurant owners who are about to launch a new line of cannabis-infused edibles. And, we'll go inside a clinic where marijuana is almost always the doctor's order.
In this bold new era of greater marijuana acceptance, the business still remains in violation of federal laws. But, the entrepreneurs have asked to be regulated, licensed and taxed -- just like any other trade. After more than seventy years as an illegal drug, is it possible that marijuana's moment has arrived?
Monday, November 28, 2011
Cannabis: What's the Harm? Episode 2
Ex-EastEnders star James Alexandrou was caught smoking cannabis by the tabloids when he left the soap. Now he wants to find out the truth about the most popular illegal drug in Britain, see the lengths people will go to get it and discover exactly where it comes from.
WHEN WE GROW, This is what we can do
A film by Seth Finegold and presented by Luke Bailey.
Featuring Interviews with:
Professor David Nutt (Head of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs)
Mr Peter Reynolds (Head of CLEAR UK, formerly the Legalize Cannabis Alliance)
Ms Sarah Martin (Medicinal cannabis patient)
Find out more at:
http://www.blogtopus.tv
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Clearing the Smoke: The Science of Cannabis
Extensive interviews with patients, doctors, researchers and skeptics detail the promises and the limitations of medicinal cannabis. Even though the video has an American perspective, marijuana use is illegal throughout many countries of the world for reasons that are not clear.
This video is important because it mainly investigates the scientific basis underlying the medical benefits of marijuana use instead of focusing on the social, political and legal hysteria that have been attached to it.
The paper mentioned in this video, Marihuana Reconsidered, was published in book form. The author, Dr Lester Grinspoon, is the world's leading authority on marijuana. In this book, Dr Grinspoon examines — and debunks — many of the common misconceptions about marijuana.
MontanaPBS Presents: Clearing the Smoke: The Science of Cannabis.
www.watch.montanapbs.org/video/1825223761/
Cannabis: What's the Harm? Episode 1
James Alexandrou was caught smoking cannabis by the tabloids when he left the soap. Now he wants to find out the truth about the most popular illegal drug in Britain, see the lengths people will go to get it and discover exactly where it comes from.
In the first of two programs, James looks at the effects of the drug on the streets of Britain, meeting a 17-year-old who smokes weed with his parents and a mum-of-three who uses cannabis to keep her emotions in check. He meets people who are growing cannabis illegally for themselves and goes out on patrol with a police drug squad as they clamp down on large-scale cannabis growers. He also travels to California, the first state in America to license cannabis for medicinal use.
The Union
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Marijuana a Chronic History
The fight against drug use in America has been going on since the turn of the last century but the term "War on Drugs" only became part of our national dialogue in 1970 when it was first used by President Richard Nixon. The President later formed the DEA and started a push to outlaw drugs of all kinds. Among the most discussed drugs in this war is Marijuana. This special will look at the storied and strange history of Marijuana in America.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Record-High 50% of Americans Favor Legalizing Marijuana Use
Record-High 50% of Americans Favor Legalizing Marijuana Use
PRINCETON, NJ -- A record-high 50% of Americans now say the use of marijuana should be made legal, up from 46% last year. Forty-six percent say marijuana use should remain illegal.
When Gallup first asked about legalizing marijuana, in 1969, 12% of Americans favored it, while 84% were opposed. Support remained in the mid-20s in Gallup measures from the late 1970s to the mid-1990s, but has crept up since, passing 30% in 2000 and 40% in 2009 before reaching the 50% level in this year's Oct. 6-9 annual Crime survey.
According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, "Marijuana is the most commonly abused illicit drug in the United States." The National Survey on Drug Use and Health in 2009 found that "16.7 million Americans aged 12 or older used marijuana at least once in the month prior to being surveyed, an increase over the rates reported in all years between 2002 and 2008."
The advocacy group National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws claims that marijuana is the third-most-popular recreational drug in America, behind only alcohol and tobacco. Some states have decriminalized marijuana's use, some have made it legal for medicinal use, and some officials, including former U.S. Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders, have called for legalizing its use.
A Gallup survey last year found that 70% favored making it legal for doctors to prescribe marijuana in order to reduce pain and suffering. Americans have consistently been more likely to favor the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes than to favor its legalization generally.
Younger Americans Most in Favor of Legalizing Marijuana
Support for legalizing marijuana is directly and inversely proportional to age, ranging from 62% approval among those 18 to 29 down to 31% among those 65 and older. Liberals are twice as likely as conservatives to favor legalizing marijuana. And Democrats and independents are more likely to be in favor than are Republicans.
More men than women support legalizing the drug. Those in the West and Midwest are more likely to favor it than those in the South.
Bottom Line
Support for legalizing marijuana has been increasing over the past several years, rising to 50% today -- the highest on record. If this current trend on legalizing marijuana continues, pressure may build to bring the nation's laws into compliance with the people's wishes.
PRINCETON, NJ -- A record-high 50% of Americans now say the use of marijuana should be made legal, up from 46% last year. Forty-six percent say marijuana use should remain illegal.
According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, "Marijuana is the most commonly abused illicit drug in the United States." The National Survey on Drug Use and Health in 2009 found that "16.7 million Americans aged 12 or older used marijuana at least once in the month prior to being surveyed, an increase over the rates reported in all years between 2002 and 2008."
The advocacy group National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws claims that marijuana is the third-most-popular recreational drug in America, behind only alcohol and tobacco. Some states have decriminalized marijuana's use, some have made it legal for medicinal use, and some officials, including former U.S. Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders, have called for legalizing its use.
A Gallup survey last year found that 70% favored making it legal for doctors to prescribe marijuana in order to reduce pain and suffering. Americans have consistently been more likely to favor the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes than to favor its legalization generally.
Younger Americans Most in Favor of Legalizing Marijuana
Support for legalizing marijuana is directly and inversely proportional to age, ranging from 62% approval among those 18 to 29 down to 31% among those 65 and older. Liberals are twice as likely as conservatives to favor legalizing marijuana. And Democrats and independents are more likely to be in favor than are Republicans.
More men than women support legalizing the drug. Those in the West and Midwest are more likely to favor it than those in the South.
Support for legalizing marijuana has been increasing over the past several years, rising to 50% today -- the highest on record. If this current trend on legalizing marijuana continues, pressure may build to bring the nation's laws into compliance with the people's wishes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)