Marijuana Policy

One of the fun things about being a drug warrior is that you can always propose crazy new drug laws, even when they overlap with existing legislation. The temptation to single out and stigmatize perpetrators of every remote subcategory of drug activity has been known to keep drug-obsessed legislators off the golf course.

This week, Nevada State Sen. Joe Heck (R-Las Vegas) is championing unnecessary marijuana laws in a state where 44% of voters want to legalize the stuff. From the Reno Gazette-Journal:

Nevada parents who grow a single marijuana plant in their home where children live could be subject to a prison term of up to 15 years, according to a bill that was debated Monday at the Nevada Legislature.

Senate Bill 5, sponsored by state Sen. Joe Heck, R-Las Vegas, would subject parents who grow or sell marijuana in the presence of children to the same penalties as adults who operate methamphetamine labs in front of children.

Of course meth labs frequently explode and spew toxic chemicals, eventually producing methamphetamine. Marijuana plants just sit around smelling nice and getting larger, and eventually you get marijuana. Different drugs, different process, different people, same draconian punishment?

"The very behavior of small children puts them at risk around these materials, including marijuana," Heck said. "As any parent knows, the first place a toddler places anything they find is in their mouth. What if this object is a marijuana plant?"

I'm skeptical. A lot of kids won’t eat vegetables unless you withhold dessert. And unheated marijuana is basically non-psychoactive. I'm not saying people should grow marijuana with kids around, but the bill's proponents have cited no evidence of small children being injured by live marijuana plants. I doubt they'll find any.

At best, a 15-year mandatory minimum for small-time marijuana cultivation is an imprecise reaction to the general concern that children put random things in their mouths. At worst, one might call it shameless drug war posturing, hastily drafted without evidence of any particular urgency, to the detriment of a thousand better ways to spend money on Nevada's children.

Actually, that's exactly what it is.

I haven't yet watched the Lou Dobbs piece on the marijuana legalization movement, but it is has already been made available for viewing on YouTube, here. I am very interested to read comments -- hopefully posted here to the blog -- from those of you who have seen it. There is an online poll running on CNN from the Lou Dobbs Tonight home page. If it's still going when you read this blog post, please go there and vote. At latest count Dobbs was losing big-time -- 79-21%! So there. Read my takeoff on Dobbs' drug war editorial if you haven't already, in this week's Chronicle or here.

bulletin from the city of Lafayette: http://www.cityoflafayette.com/News.asp?NewsID=1466 City Withdraws Ordinance Ordinance No. 06, 2007, which amended Section 75-41 and 75-42 of Lafayette's Municipal Code regarding the maximum penalties for possession of cannabis (marijuana), has been withdrawn. City staff and City Council have determined that more information and analysis are needed on this matter, and it will be the subject of a Council Workshop Meeting on April 3. If and when the ordinance is brought forward after the workshop City Council's process for voting on the ordinance will start from the beginning, with votes required at two separate Council Meetings. The April 3 City Council Workshop will be held at City Hall, Council Chambers, 1290 South Public Road, at 5:30 PM. The workshop meeting is open to the public and will be broadcast live on Cable Channel 8. also, a press release from SAFER about it:

I am the Lafayette ex-associate judge who resigned on Monday to protest the attempts by the City Council, inspired by the "main" judge, to increase the penalty for petty offense possession (under 1 oz) of cannabis, from $100 to $1,000 and a year in jail, maximum. Although this was never my "day job," and in spite of not having taken the bench as a backup judge in quite some time, I was still #2 in line if needed. The mayor of Lafayette told the press that since this was not a set penalty, but just a max penalty, that we were free to stick with the $100 fine. I personally believe that it is wrong to sit as a judge with a hidden agenda. It seems wrong to me to be willing to take the bench, and to impose sentences, even at the municipal level, while being absolutely unwilling to enforce the law as the City Council intends. This issue has taken on a life of its own, and when the City Council addresses it again on 2/20/2007, they will have the spotlight of the media, SAFER, SANE, NORML, MPP, and the ACLU, as well as the citizens of this fair city watching. That is as it should be. Lenny Frieling (See Judge Frieling's press release from yesterday afternoon here.)

Following my resignation as a Lafayette Municipal Court Associate Judge in protest of an unnecessary and drastic proposal to increase marijuana possession penalties in the City of Lafayette, some misinformed officials with the city launched an attack on my character, spurring news stories that suggested I was no longer an associate judge with the city at the time of my resignation. According to a member of the local press who requested my employment history from Lafayette Human Resource Director Pam Spring, my employment status was "active" as of Tuesday, Feb. 13, 2007. Ms. Spring also informed this individual that , while a new judge had been hired last April, I had not been replaced and retained my position with the City. It is true that I had not been called to sit on the bench for a while. As a result, the message I intended to send with my resignation is still as pertinent now as it was when this story first broke. The City hired me because they trusted my judgment, and I can no longer serve as a judge for a city willing to go to such great measures to ensure they have the ability to punish non-violent adult marijuana users more harshly than the state mandates. I do not pretend that it was a huge personal sacrifice. I am not the issue. The issue is the issue. Thus, I will be standing in opposition to this measure at a press conference Tuesday, the day on which this measure's fate will be determined. More details about this event will follow from Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER). I suspect that I will NOT attend the city council meeting on Tuesday evening. The city council SHOULD be informed of the position of the public on this issue. I suspect that they already are aware of my position, and won't benefit from hearing it again. I would be a distraction, and this story is not about me. Lenny Frieling (See Judge Frieling's blog piece written for DRCNet's Speakeasy here.)

It's just after 1AM Eastern time, and it looks like the Colorado, Nevada, and South Dakota marijuana initiatives are all headed for defeat. It ain't over 'til it's over, of course, but it's almost over.

We're getting down to the final days of this election season, and we're waiting with bated breath for that first marijuana legalization victory in Colorado and/or Nevada. I'll be doing a feature story on these two races on Friday for the Chronicle. I have calls in to both campaigns, but for some reason, these folks appear to be pretty busy right now. Although I was hoping to have something to report today direct from SAFER Colorado and/or theCommittee to Regulate and Control Marijuana in Nevada, neither has gotten back to me yet.

When I read the autobiography of 20th Century Salvadoran revolutionary leader Miguel Marmol some years ago, one phrase from the book stuck with me. When Marmol talked about the tedious, day-to-day organizing over the long-term to build a revolutionary movement, he called it "trabajo de hormigas," or "ant work." I thought the term was especially apt and evocative, suggesting the unglamorous, but necessary, laying the groundwork for change.

Election day is now three weeks away, and the Chronicle will be focusing on drug policy-related races across the country between now and then. With most people's attention focused on whether the Democrats will regain control of the House and/or Senate, the drug policy-related races and ballot questions are not getting much attention, except at the local and state level, but there are some important drug policy-related questions being decided on election day. Expect to see a lot of articles focused on the elections between now and November 7, and, of course, the Friday following the election.

Sometimes I feel like the Rodney Dangerfield of alternative advocacy journalism. I just don’t get no respect, especially from drug reform foes (for some reason). The two big stories I'm working on this week are the marijuana initiatives in Colorado and Nevada, where big fights are brewing. Here is a list of people or organizations involved in trying to defeat the initiatives who either refused to talk to me or failed to respond to repeated calls about their efforts: