According to Ohio State University researchers, tetrahydrocannibinol, or THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, may be good for the "aging brain by reducing inflammation there and possibly even stimulating the formation of new brain cells," reads a press release. The OSU research suggests that the "development of a legal drug" that contains properties "similar to this in marijuana" might actually prevent or delay the onset of Alzheimer's disease.
THC now joins nicotine, alcohol and caffeine as "agents" that when used in moderation have shown some protection against inflammation, which can help ensure better memory later in life, reports OSU. "It's not that everything immoral is good for the brain," says OSU psychology professor Gary Wenk. "It's just that there are some substances that millions of people for thousands of years have used in billions of doses" -- and millions of people can't be wrong, right? (Of course, I wouldn't go so far as to call pot, booze or caffeine use "immoral.") "Could people smoke marijuana to prevent Alzheimer's disease if the disease is in their family?" Wenk asks. "We're not saying that, but it might actually work." Wenk apparently thinks that it might be better to come up with another "legal" substance that mimics natural marijuana -- or maybe we could just legalize marijuana?
It looks like former Eric H. Holder, Jr., is likely to be tapped by President-elect Barack Obama as his nominee to become the next attorney general. Holder is a former deputy AG during the Clinton administration, who previously served as a judge and U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. If confirmed by the Senate, Holder would become the country's first African-American AG.
Oh, and he's also a fan of increasing penalties for marijuana possession and use. Indeed, unlike Obama, who has said he would forbid the Drug Enforcement Administration from using taxpayer funds to bust medi-pot patients taking the drug in compliance with state law, and, importantly, has come out publicly as a foe of mandatory minimum sentences, especially for non-violent drug offenders. It's a position that appears to run contrary to Holder's feelings about man-min sentencing.
The narco warriors over at the White House Office of National Drug Control might not be very good at controlling the use of drugs, but they're always good for a laugh or two. Take, for example,their latest don't-do-pot ad campaign, which suggests that pot smoking leads to a life of limited opportunity, by featuring jobs for tokers -- including burrito taster, remote control operator, and couch security guard.
They're kind of funny, but mostly they're just really, really...dopey. The ads run with the cute little motto, "Hey, not trying to be your mom, but there aren't many jobs out there for potheads" -- which simply isn't true. Okay, well, it may be true for some jobs, but not for most -- like, for example, U.S. president (Barack Obama smoked pot, and, shit, we all know Bill Clinton was a toker, even if he still swears he never inhaled), or governor of Alaska (Sarah Palin has also admitted to a pot smoking past), or even country music icon (Willie Nelson). Writer/blogger Radney Balko and his readers have started a list of successful pot smokers, here. I'm sure we can keep the list going.
Some of the corruption uncovered in the Atlanta Police Dept. narco unit can be attributed to "the nine and two" -- a quota system requiring drug officers to make nine arrests and two warrants each month, attorney William McKenney told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "Its difficult to stay within a quota and abide by the rules," he said.
McKenney represents APD narco officer Arthur Tesler, who last month pleaded guilty to federal charges in connection with the botched raid that caused the death in 2006 of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston in her own home. Johnston was shot and killed by narco officers during an no-knock raid of her house. The raid was in error and the killing sparked a reexamination of APD drug enforcement activities as well as an independent investigation by the feds.
But McKenney said the federal investigators failed to get to the root causes of corruption within the unit -- including where the nine-and-two rule came from and "why there was no accountability in that unit. That was a real failure," he said.
I just realized that it has been months since we ran the Reefer Madness rundown on the presidential candidates' positions on drugs. That's because, unfortunately, not much has changed -- except that Sen. Hillary Clinton isn't around anymore.
That's a shame, really, because prohibition ain't working -- our prison population continues to grow, thanks largely to the constant addition of drug offenders, many of them there for non-violent offenses.
Still, there are bright spots -- both McCain and Obama support increased use of drug courts, and Obama has said that man-min sentencing for non-violent offense has to end. That said, its a tad disappointing (although, honestly, not so surprising) that two candidates who have personal experience with the realities of prohibition -- McCain's wife Cindy had a serious problem with scrip med abuse a while back, and Obama has admitted to recreational drug use (pot and coke, not to mention his ongoing issues with cigarettes) -- wouldn't be more vocal about the perils of prohibition.
What happens over the next four years will be charted on E-night, just six days away. And with that in mind, I won't go on and on about the candidates' positions on drugs (even though I could, at length). Rather, I'll turn it over to you, drug-law enthusiast, so that you can check things out for yourself.
For Obama's positions on drug laws, check here. For McCain's, here.
The Sentencing Project has compiled candidate platforms here. Meanwhile, Alternet has a progressive voter's guide to drugs here. And, finally, the treatment and prevention gurus at Join Together have put together not only resources for candidate positions, but also a handy state-by-state guide to drug law-related issues that will appear on ballots next week.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer looked at hundreds of drug cases there to determine whether white defendants are treated differently than blacks. Guess what they found: If you're white, it's all right. Indeed, the PD found that since 2000, a black person in Cleveland's Cuyahoga Co. is 12.7 times more likely than a white person to be sent to state prison on drug charges.
The paper focused on drugs cases, "which not only dominate local court dockets but also are characterized far more than most violent or property crimes by judgment calls and policy decisions at virtually every level of the system."
Kind of reminds me of a similar project we undertook in 2004, looking at the way black defendants fared in drug cases in Williamson Co. You can read that story here.
Voters agree: the drug war is a losing proposition.
According to a recent poll by Zogby International, 76% of voters say the war on drugs is failing -- that includes the vast majority of Democratic voters (86%) and a majority of Republicans (61%).
When asked about the best way to remedy the problem, 27% of the more than 4,500 likely voters polled said it would be best to legalize some drugs; 19% said that treatment and education should be a top focus.
The results of the poll are not surprising, Jack Cole, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, told Join Together: "Voters are ready for reform of our nation's failed drug prohibition policies," he said. "But when will lawmakers get the message?"
It isn't often that the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court actually take pen to paper to formally log their dissent when colleagues decide not to hear a case. But on Oct. 14, Chief Justice John Roberts made an exception to the rule -- with an attempt at Raymond Chandler-style pulp. Check it: "North Philly, May 4, 2001. Officer Sean Devlin, Narcotics Strike Force, was working the morning shift. Undercover surveillance. The neighborhood? Tough as a three-dollar steak," Roberts wrote.
The case: An appeal from Pennsylvania, where the state Supremes tossed the conviction of a man arrested for drug possession. The court ruled that the cops, who'd witnessed an exchange of "small objects" between two men on a street corner, lacked probable cause to arrest one of the men. The state turned to the U.S. Supremes, but the court rejected the appeal. Roberts (and Justice Anthony Kennedy) disagreed, arguing that while a "drug purchase was not the only possible explanation for the defendant's conduct" it was "certainly likely enough to give rise to probable cause."
Supremes Consider the Limits of Warantless Searches
It's October, which means that the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court have dusted off their robes and are heading back to the court room for a few months of work.
First up on the docket today, Oct. 6 – the opening day of their October 2008 term – was a drug case, but regarding the legal kind, that is: cigarettes. (The question there, in case you're curious, is whether state-law challenges to descriptions of "light" cigarettes – that they contain less tar and, thus, are perhaps less damaging, for example – that were authorized by the Federal Trade Commission are thus pre-empted by federal law. Sounds technical, sure, and perhaps boring, but the outcome could effect the ability of states to enforce their deceptive trade practices laws.)
But just this first day will pass before the Supremes get down to considering the drug war, with two cases that will ask them to weigh in on the Fourth Amendment and limits of police search powers.
In the first case, Arizona v. Gant, the court will have to decide whether a warrantless search of a car, made after the occupant was arrested and in handcuffs, violates the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure. In the second case, Herring v. U.S., the court will have to decide if it is a violation of a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights to use evidence obtained by one police agency during a search that was based on erroneous information provided by another law enforcement agency.
Stay tuned to Reefer Madness for more on these two cases.
California Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger this week vetoed legislation designed to protect medi-pot patients from being fired from their jobs for toking the med during off hours.
The bill, AB 2279, authored by San Francisco Dem Assemblyman Mark Leno was filed in response to a previous ruling by a Cali court that found that employees who use medi-mari in compliance with state law, but who fail a workplace drug test, can be fired. Leno's bill would've made it unlawful for employers to discriminate against medi-pot patient employees.
But Schwarzenegger wasn't having it. "I am concerned with interference in employment decisions as they relate to marijuana use," he wrote in a veto message to Leno. "Employment protection was not a goal of the initiative passed by voters in 1996."
But Cali NORML Coordinator Dale Gieringer argues that protecting patients is exactly what 1996's Prop 215 was designed to do. "The goal … was to treat marijuana like other legal pharmaceutical drugs," Gieringer, one of Prop 215's authors, said.
Schwarzenegger's veto may not be too surprising – according to Cali NORML, the guv has vetoed every single marijuana measure to come across his desk. But you can bet the employment discrimination bill will be back.
Cali Anti-Crime Initative Backer Popped on Drug Charges
Faced with whopping debt and a frightening budget forecast, what kind of law enforcement priorities do California lawmakers have on their minds? As it turns out, nothing new (unless you consider locking people up for a longer period of time a "new" strategy), but plenty that is just scary, scary, scary. And, as it turns out, the biggest financial backer of state lawmakers' biggest "anti-crime" initiative is now facing a possibility of 340 years in prison.
A few weeks ago, the folks at The Hill asked National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) Executive Director Allen St. Pierre to post to its blog discussing why folks should support the federal pot decrim measure introduced by Reps. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Texas' Ron Paul, R-Surfside.
What is amazing, says St. Pierre, is that, when asked by the editors to reply, the drug warriors at the ONDCP took to the blog with their response – growing the simple essay exercise into an almost-real-life debate between D.C.'s drug reformers and drug warriors. Imagine that!
The nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest last week filed suit in Washington, D.C. against beer maker MillerCoors, asking the court to force the company to stop selling its alcospeed "energy" beer beverage Sparks.
According to CSPI, MillerCoors is marketing Sparks to the 'tween and teen crowd with its "juvenile" web site and "guerilla marketing." Alcospeed beverages like Sparks have more alcohol than does beer – Sparks contains 6-7% by volume – is "enhanced" by a sweet taste (ick, ick, ick), is bright orange (seriously: orange beer. Barf), and contains a host of additives, including caffeine and guarana. In October, MillerCoors is set to release Sparks Red, which will contain 8% alcohol by volume. In all, CSPI says the drinks are marketed to seem more like soda than booze, thus appealing to younger drinkers.
The U.S. Sentencing Commission has signaled that it will consider alternatives to incarceration in meetings next year, reports the Wall Street Journal.
The USSC was created in 1984 to, as its name so nicely implies, recommend sentencing ranges for federal crimes. Now, with the U.S. prison population at an all-time high, with some 2.3 million behind bars, 200,000 of them in the federal system, the Commission dropped notice in the Federal Register that it will take up alts to incarceration. "We're going to be looking at what might fit at the starting point, before somebody is sent to prison," Commission chair, and McAllen federal court judge, Ricardo Hinojosa told the WSJ.
The progressive move seems sure to trigger a battle with the Dept. of Justice, which hasn't exactly embraced previous Commission projects – as with last year's Commission decision to reset sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine offenses to bring to an end the so-called 100-to-one sentencing disparity with powder cocaine. The Commission for years had urged Congress to make the changes before finally taking steps to do so on its own. (Commission decisions take effect unless Congress votes to oppose them.) The DOJ went into major hand-wringing mode when the Commission then took the decision a step further, making the sentencing changes retroactive. Despite DOJ warnings, it doesn't appear any backlash has emerged, in the form of crazed crackheads retaking urban streets as the DOJ had predicted.
Still, the DOJ isn't so sure about the Commission's new mission: While they're interested in the use of monitoring technology – like GPS, increasingly being used on probationers – "we do not believe the use of alternatives [to incarceration] should be expanded without further rigorous research showing their effectiveness in promoting public safety," DOJ spokeswoman Laura Sweeney told the daily.
It's like clockwork: Every three months or so (it seems like so much more often) we get word from the Texas Dept. of Public Safety that some trooper (or troopers) somewhere has busted some completely incompetent criminal hauling some big-ass load of dope up over the Mex border.
Sure, there's good reason that it happens so often in Texas -- according to the White House Office of the National Drug Control Policy (whose statistics are, generally, for shit, but in this case seem rather pertinent) the Tex-Mex border is actually the nation's largest marijuana sieve. But there is no good reason for such incompetence in the haulers. Really. We love the pictures DPS regularly provides for these busts, but mostly because we're laughing at these people (OK, I guess we're never laughing with 'em, right? Cuz I doubt they're laughing on the way to the pokey). I mean, seriously, when are these pot pushers gonna learn that stacking the haul up in the SUV so that it obscures the rear view is NOT a good idea? Or that simply stashing your dope in the with legit haul -- in this most recent case, that would be packing it in there on top of the crates of fruit -- is not so smart?
As questions about possible political improprieties dog White House Office of the National Drug Control Policy, agency head John Walters hits Austin in search of good PR
