Posted on 11/16/2005 8:24:04 AM PST by JTN
You wouldnt have expected it during any other week, but for a few days in mid-November, pot smoke wafted throughout the hallways and meeting rooms of the Westin Hotel in Long Beach, California.
Upscale hotels arent typical hangouts for barefoot young hippies, recovering addicts, or a handful of self-described harm reduction hotties toting their own 12-month calendar and information about how to minimize disease and other damage from injection drug use.
But here they were, rubbing elbows with retired police chiefs, academics, addiction specialists, attorneys, non-profit directors, religious leaders and formerly incarcerated prisoners.
The occasion? The 2005 International Drug Policy Reform Conference, organized by the Drug Policy Alliance. With nearly 1,000 registrants from all over the United States and many parts of Europe, Latin America and Canada, the event offered attendees nearly 75 sessions over three days, on topics such as harm reduction psychotherapy, rogue anti-drug task forces, and cutting edge cannabis research in Canada.
The group causing the biggest buzz, by far, were the representatives of LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, which calls for an end to the drug war altogether. In the three years since the groups founding, the not-for-profit has cultivated an impressive advisory board with the likes of former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson; Joseph McNamara, San Joses former police chief; Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell; former Seattle police chief Norm Stamper and U.S. District Court Judge John Kane.
Years ago, police officers would only have mingled with this crowd as undercover agents, but here, burly LEAPers were treated like celebrities in their own right, easy to spot because of their buzz cuts, cowboy hats and/or extremely large lettering on their brightly colored t-shirts: Cops Say Legalize Drugs. Ask Me Why.
A LEAP panel discussion yielded shocking stories from the drug war front lines. Admissions from LEAP Director and former New Jersey state police lieutenant Jack Cole, a 26-year veteran and narc, surprised even this drug war-savvy crowd. We lied regularly about the numbers of drugs we were seizing, Cole said, explaining that if his fellow officers were lucky enough to bust someone for one ounce of cocaine, theyd immediately look for a cutting agent to double the amount of the seizure. And if a seizures street value stood at $1,500, the cops would bump it up to $20,000. Whos to question it, Cole asked.
Other panelists spoke of leaving the profession because they couldnt stomach the lies or the corruption, especially when they noticed fellow cops striking deals with the people they were supposed to arrest, selling and smuggling drugs, and buying cars, trips and multi-million dollar homes with their proceeds.
Garry Jones, a retired senior lieutenant who has worked in prisons across the country, including the federal system, recalled instances where people would come to prison on visiting day just to buy drugs from the inmates. My [colleagues] were bringing drugs inside the prisons, making big money There was no way to escape drugs in prison. You couldnt do it yesterday and you cant do it today, he said.
Jones said that he was particularly troubled to see ever-increasing numbers of African American men being locked up, often on drug-related offenses.
In this session and many others, plenty of talk was devoted to the plight of the poor people and people of color who make up the vast majority of American jail and prison populations. The few formerly incarcerated men in attendance echoed the sentiment that it felt good to hear so many people acknowledging the seriousness of the problem.
But if theres one thing that prison teaches longtime inmates, its that theres no point to talking if you cant back it up. People who have been locked up tend to have little patience for bullshit, even if its well-intentioned and comes from a gentle medical marijuana activist selling colorful, close-up pictures of fat buds, or from red-eyed college students passing joints on the hotel patio.
Building a movement with integrity has to be about more than weed, says Dorsey Nunn during the conferences only session by and about the formerly incarcerated.
Nunn, a former crack addict and prisoner, is now the program director of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, and co-founder of an advocacy group, All of Us or None.
There are a lot of people advocating on our behalf, he said, but are we allowed to come and sit at that table with them? Nunns question was straight and to the point, but the sentiment is still relatively new within the drug policy reform movement.
Just as the drug policy reform movement has benefited from the insight and visible presence of LEAPers, so, too, can it be made more powerful and effective if it creates more seats at the table for the men and women who have lived through this brutal war, and experienced it from the inside out.
I may not be from MO, but you'll still have to show me.
Anslinger may have poached the notion from Canada, which passed anti-pot laws to deport black jazz musicians and their low-life associates.
Seriously!
The Opium Laws in Canada were explicitly anti-Chinese from the get-go. There is no debate about this fact, and it is my understanding that similar anti-Chinese sentiments were the driving force behind these laws in the U.S.
Which is irrelevant. What's relevant is the chemical in the plant and its abuse.
To me that seems anecdotal and inconclusive. Using Occam's razor, it seems to me that the most cynical conclusion one can come up with is that Anslinger was motivated by the American federal prohibition of alcohol to advocate for the prohibition of other substances.
As far as the slang term "the Man" is concerned, it seems to apply to any white authority figure from President to policeman to shift supervisor. I'm not sure what would make it narcotics-specific.
'The man' is the white authority figure, and its the easy prosecution of 'the herb' that enables the racist persectuion of blacks. Let 'em smoke their pot, let 'em make their own excuses for their failures.
Some of you righteous types don't want to acknowledge that there is a culture difference and many in their (black) culture prefer cannabis. This is also true of other cultures, and thats what makes prosecution racist.
No, I've been told.
No one has cited a quote, a fact, a date, a figure, let alone the actual words of a statute. I note that I am the first person on this thread to even cite concrete historical facts - namely the central role that Harry Anslinger played in the history of American drug enforcement.
In your previous post to me you acknowledge the racist tactic of Anslinger
What "racist tactic"? I said that it would not surprise me that a man born in rural PA in the 1890s may have been a racist, but that nothing about his career suggests that his campaign was motivated more by race than by a bureaucrat's instinct for job security.
Phony righteousness; it appears that is the only type of righteouness found anymore, phony.
I'm not sure what supposed righteousness you're talking about. You and your pals are the ones who feel they are righteous enough to stand in judgment over all of American drug enforcement and convict it as just a racist cabal - despite the fact that many of the men who fight and die in the war against the distribution of narcotics are intelligent principled black men who consider themselves to be fighting on behalf of their community as well as mine.
Some actual hard facts that can be quantified and referenced would be nice.
"Which is irrelevant."
No, it isn't. It is the whole point.
Seriously, what were you thinking when you posted that? The government should have no power to say what naturally occuring plant can be grown. The government does not trump God.
(Does reading it yourself count as being shown or told?)
Do you think it should be legal for parents to feed their children a diet of feces? It's natural.
If they were, then you could cite evidence that Anslinger used them specifically while helping draft US drug legislation between 1928-1936.
You'd also have to show evidence that these laws were deliberately racist in intent - the original 1919 Texas statute seems to have been intended to prevent the importation of cannabis over the border in contravention of US Customs laws.
Perhaps you will now argue that the US Department of Customs was originally set up solely for racist purposes.
Some of you righteous types don't want to acknowledge that there is a culture difference and many in their (black) culture prefer cannabis.
Your colleague PaxMacian says that there is absolutely no racial difference in the prevalence of the use of cannabis. I'll let you sort it out, but your assertion sounds vaguely racist to me.
China executed addicts. Thats about the only way we can win this "war" against drugs
Well Hell, Throw in all the people who are addicted to drugs they get LEGALLY from their doctors and we can solve the population problem too.
I do care - which is why I was careful to be accurate.
Pax said something like there is equal disbursement of drug usage
Thank you for admitting that my citation was indeed perfectly accurate.
he didn't say squat about cultural acceptance
A distinction without a difference. Widespread usage implies acceptance. If it wasn't accepted, people wouldn't do it.
Continue with your blind rejection,
My rejection of the unsupported assertion that drug enforcement is inherently racist is hardly "blind" - I know black LEOs personally who put their lives on the line to fight the drugs that are killing kids in their communities. That does fit your little theory too well, does it?
continue with your fear,
I'm not afraid of discussing hard facts. You are. You and your buddies are long on rhetorical flash and very short on names, dates, facts and figures.
continue with your deceit,
You're the guy making sweeping claims he can't back up. Not I.
but don't expect any respect from me.
Why would I expect any?
The opposite, actually. deceit begets ridicule.
Just because you find it easier to spout meaningless ridicule than to do your homework doesn't make ridicule an inevitability. It's your weakmindedness, not my problem.
Typical answer of someone too lazy to back up their own unsupportable assertions.
I'll be clear: things aren't true because you say they're true. Your uninformed opinions are not automatically fact.
If you want to be taken seriously when you make a sweeping generalization, you'll have to do better than : "It's true because I say so."
"Do you think it should be legal for parents to feed their children a diet of feces? It's natural."
Oh, jeez. Get real. If someone wants to eat his or her on feces, that's their business and it's not illegal. Nobody said anything about forcing anything on children. What a complete disconnect.
There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.All from Harry Anslinger....the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.
Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men.
Many newspapers also editorialized in favor of marijuana prohibition on racist grounds.
You might also be interested in reading Eric Schlosser's book Reefer Madness, which explains how some of the suspicion of cannabis was due to its use by Mexican immigrants.
As for current policy, it clearly is more harmful to minorities:
A Northeastern University study of drug busts in the Dorchester section of Boston found that black and other minority suspects faced far stiffer charges and longer prison terms than whites, the Boston Globe reported on July 19th. The findings held true even when suspects had similar records or similar roles in the crimes.Interestingly, John Walters has talked about how the war on drugs has targeted minorities for their own good. See here and here....
The study of some 200 cases in one of Boston's seven court districts found that among defendants described as drug "sellers" in initial police reports, blacks were nearly twice as likely as whites to be charged with drug sales instead of the less serious drug possession.
Racial minorities were also found to be more likely to be charged with distribution or intent to distribute cocaine than whites. Cocaine distribution, intent to distribute, or distribution within a school zone requires a mandatory minimum two-year sentence.
When researchers factored in criminal records, the disparities remained. Comparing blacks and whites with no prior drug arrests, researchers found that more than half the blacks got distribution charges, while only 15% of whites did.
Controlling for the amount of drugs seized, researchers found that, among those arrested with at least 1.5 grams of cocaine, 94% of minorities were charged with drug dealing, while only 26% of whites were.
Like I figured, you won't even read it yourself. That is pure ignorance.
It's the by products of the war on drugs that are ruining societies. The government has in essence created a marketplace for the drug cartels, however the government refuses to direct the commerce with regulations....so we are left with the criminals policing this marketplace. Crime, mayhem and murder are ten times the problem the addict is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.