Elizabeth Warren Might Have the Best Marijuana Legalization Plan Yet. – Weedmaps News

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) unveiled a plan for federal marijuana reform on Sunday, calling for legalization as well as a series of policies aimed at righting the wrongs of the drug war and promoting involvement in the legal industry by communities harmed by prohibition.

In the Just and Equitable Cannabis Industry plan, which Warren's campaign shared with Marijuana Moment ahead of a town hall event in Colorado, the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate slams the racist 'War on Drugs' policy perpetuated during the Nixon administration and the mass incarceration that has followed.

She also introduces noteworthy ideas, such as using her executive authority to begin the federal legalization process within 100 days of taking office, respecting the sovereignty of other nations to legalize marijuana, protecting immigrants who participate in the legal industry, empowering veterans to access medical cannabis and ensuring that corporations aren't able to monopolize the market.

Further, the Warren plan promotes unionization in the marijuana industry, protecting Indian tribes' authority to enact their own reform programs and lifting a current ban so that Washington, D.C. can use its local monies to implement legal marijuana sales

Even as the federal government has held fast to its outdated marijuana policy, states have led the charge in adopting thoughtful, evidenced-based marijuana policy, the six-page document says. And what have we learned in the eight years since the first states legalized marijuana? Legalization works.

The senator details the progress of the legalization movement and the economic potential of the industry, and she argues that access to cannabis has been shown to play a role in mitigating the opioid epidemic. All that said, she notes that marijuana arrests have continued to increase nationally and they continue to be carried out on racially disproportionate basis and so comprehensive reform at the federal level is a goal she is pledging to pursue starting day one if elected president.

It's not justice when we lock up kids caught with an ounce of pot, while hedge fund managers make millions off of the legal sale of marijuana. My administration will put an end to that broken system.

Legalizing marijuana is about more than just allowing recreational use, or the potential medicinal benefit, or the money that can be made from this new market, the Warren plan says. It's about undoing a century of racist policy that disproportionately targeted Black and Latinx communities. It's about rebuilding the communities that have suffered the most harm. And it's about ensuring that everyone has access to the opportunities that the new cannabis market provides.

Warren's proposal is two-pronged. The first objective is to address the disproportionate enforcement of our drug laws. Here's how she plans to accomplish that:

Warren's second broad objective as described in the plan is to prioritize opportunities in the cannabis industry for communities of color and others who were harmed by the failed policies of the past. That will involve:

For four decades, we've subscribed to a 'War on Drugs' theory of crime, which has criminalized addiction, ripped apart families and failed to curb drug use, the plan states. Legalizing marijuana and erasing past convictions won't fully end the War on Drugs or address its painful legacy, but it's a needed step in the right direction.

As we move to harness the economic potential of a legalized cannabis industry, we must ensure that the communities that were harmed by the War on Drugs disproportionately communities of color are fully included in the opportunity and prosperity that legalization will create. I support investing federal and state revenue from the cannabis industry into communities that have been disproportionately impacted by enforcement of our existing marijuana laws.

Legalizing marijuana gives us an opportunity to repair some of the damage caused by our current criminal justice system, to invest in the communities that have suffered the most harm, and to ensure that everyone can participate in the growing cannabis industry. We have an opportunity now to get this right, and I'll fight to make that happen.

Warren also calls out former House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) in her proposal, stating that the country cannot allow affluent and predominantly white hedge-funders and capital investors to hoard the profits from the same behavior that led to the incarceration of generations of Black and Latino youth.

Boehner, who declared that he was 'unalterably opposed' to legalization while in Congress, now profits handsomely as a lobbyist for legalization even as others continue to live with the consequences of a prohibition he defended, she points out, referencing the former speaker's role as a board member at the cannabis firm Acreage Holdings.

While Warren's plan repeatedly cites the need to broadly address the harms of the broader drug war, her proposals are exclusively focused on cannabis policy changes. While she and Sanders have been strong champions of marijuana reform, drug policy advocates have emphasized the need to expand reform to other illicit substances, as former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) have by proposing decriminalization and legalization of all illegal drugs, respectively.

In terms of her marijuana reform agenda, however, experts who spoke to Marijuana Moment recently have indicated that Warren's 100-day plan would probably be legally and practically more realistic that Sanders's most recent proposal to use an executive order to legalize marijuana in all 50 states on day one of his presidency.

While Sanders initially proposed something similar to Warren appointing key officials within his administration who would pursue legalization during his first 100 days in office he shifted gears last month and pledged to deschedule cannabis on his first day in the White House.

Last year, Warren laid out a criminal justice reform plan that called for marijuana reform, as well as the legalization of safe injection sites where individuals could use illicit substances under medical supervision a move also backed by Sanders.

Warren and Sanders might have differing approaches to marijuana legalization, but what's clear is they stand in stark contrast to former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg and former Vice President Joe Biden, both of whom are the only contenders in the Democratic race who remain opposed to ending cannabis prohibition.

Featured image from Shutterstock.

This article has been republished from Marijuana Moment under a content-sharing agreement. Read the original article here.

See the original post:

Elizabeth Warren Might Have the Best Marijuana Legalization Plan Yet. - Weedmaps News

Mexico: National brigade searches for thousands of disappeared persons – DW (English)

Around 3 a.m. on September 18, 2010, Noemi Martinez Martagon discovered that her son, Luis Alberto Calleja, was gone. He had been out with his wife and two other couples in Poza Rica, Veracruz, a small city close to Mexico's gulf coast. On the Avenue 20 de Noviembre, a thoroughfare busy with bars, clubs and restaurants, federal police took him away, along with the two other men. That night, Martinez Martagon left her house to look for her son in hospitals, police stations and prisons.

Nearly a decade later, Martinez Martagon continues to search for her son, one of the thousands of reported missing victims in the state of Veracruz. This past month, nearly 300 other Mexicans joined families like Martinez Martagon's in Poza Rica as part of the Fifth National Search Brigade for Disappeared Persons.

The group, organized by the Mexico City-based Red de Enlaces Nacionales (Network of National Links), brought together participants from 74 collectives of relatives of disappeared persons across 21 Mexican states. In addition to hopes of finding their loved ones, they came together from February 7 to 22 to break the silence around forced disappearance in Mexico.

Read more:Mexico: 'Journalism is the only source of truth'

Luz Elba Hernandez was among those holding a photo of a disappeared son in a march through Poza Rica, Veracruz

More than 61,000 missing

The searchers make up but a tiny fraction of Mexico's indirect victims of forced disappearance. As of early January 2020, the Mexican government puts the number of disappeared people at 61,637.

Juan Carlos Trujillo, a brother of four disappearance victims and one of the founders of the Red de Enlaces Nacionales, describes Mexico's crisis as a lottery. "Twelve tickets a day are chosen," he said, referring to an estimate that puts the average number of forced disappearances in Mexico at a dozen a day. "The tickets are free. As Mexicans, we all have them."

Activists suspect the real number could be dozens of times the official count. Many disappearances go unreported, whether due to social stigma or the fear of retaliation by authorities or organized crime.

Disappearances began to increase after former President Felipe Calderon declared a war on drugs in 2006. Many disappearances, like that of Luis Alberto Calleja, have been tied directly to Mexican security forces. Police forces, particularly in the state of Veracruz, were notorious for working hand-in-hand with the Zetas drug cartel.

In the face of historic government collusion and negligence around disappearance, family members of disappearance victims have taken up shovels and picks to search for their loved ones. Amid a rising wave of violence 2019 was one of the most violent years in the country's history this year's search brigade brought together the largest contingent yet.

Read more:Mexico: When drug violence 'turns into terrorism'

Photos of the disappeared are last reminders of their loved ones

Government pledge

Earlier this year, President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who campaigned in 2018 on a platform of anti-corruption and ending the drug war, publicly promised unlimited government resources to aid in the search for disappeared people. But collectives of disappearance victims have said the federal government has failed to back up its pledge with action. According to coordinators, last year's brigade received significantly more support from government institutions. The National Registry for Victims (RENAVI) had previously covered the full costs for all family members' transportation to the brigade. This year, many participantsreceived partial or no coverageof their travel costs, resulting in nearly a third of registrants being unable to attend.

Juan Carlos Trujillo describes the mission of the search brigade as far more than simply excavating potential burial sites. "These people are taking 15 days out of their life to reconstruct a country," Trujillo said at a press conference to this year's search. "They are taking two weeks to bring a message of peace to Mexico."

This year, that message of peace took many different forms. Some brigade members spent each day searching fields, hills and creeks for human remains, following anonymous tips from residents of the region. Others visited prisons, rehab centers and local coroners' offices to seek out any information about their family members. Still others gave talks and led workshops on forced disappearance in churches, schools and government institutions, including municipal authorities and police forces.

Read more:Against the current: Femicide in Mexico on the rise and growing more brutal

Victims are 'erased'

At the outset of the brigade, Mario Vergara and Miguel Angel Trujillo, who are both searching for their brothers and have specialized in uncovering clandestine graves throughout Mexico, warned the rest of the group that they didn't expect to find many bodies in Veracruz.

Brigade member Mario Vergara (far left) joined state forensic experts to examine bone fragments

In Veracruz, unlike in other sites where the two men have conducted searches, the bodies of the disappeared are rarely found. A practice of destroying the bodies with acid, erasing all traces of DNA, has been common for about a decade. The brigade found evidence of sites where criminal groups had systematically burned bodies in acid or ovens. In other regions, finding the sites of former extermination camps known in the region as "kitchens" would be a step toward finding some sort of identifiable human remains, however small, but here the climate and the chemicals used have devoured many of the traces.

"These aren't graves like we're used to," said Vergara, referring to the clandestine graves common in his home state of Guerrero. "Here we aren't going to find people. There are people who were erased. Our question is, how are we going to make the government accept that there were disappearances?"

During the search, the brigade uncovered 12 sites where bodies may have been burned with acid. Members also found dozens of possible burned human bone fragments on a property that state and federal authorities had previously examined four times. The site, known as La Gallera, gave an indication of the chilling brutality that some disappearance victims may have experienced, as well as the negligence with which the state has historically treated disappearance investigations.

Among the brigade's discoveries at the La Gallera property was a huge oven and piles of ash that may hold human remains

On the final day of the brigade's activities, despite a persistent cold rain falling over the city, family members marched through Poza Rica with photos of their disappeared loved ones. They installed a plaque of remembrance, and in the city's Civic Square Noe Amezcua, one of the members of the coordinating team, read out a bulletin presenting their findings.

"We call for the implementation of a holistic search policy in the region," he said. "The state of emergency that this region is experiencing can only be overcome hand-in-hand with the families."

Read more:Mexico's children and youths face monstrous violence

Every day, DW's editors send out a selection of the day's hard news and quality feature journalism. Sign up for the newsletter here.

See the original post:

Mexico: National brigade searches for thousands of disappeared persons - DW (English)

Saturday Journal: If we do the same old things, we’ll get the same old results – The Courier

Morrisons, the fourth-largest supermarket chain in the country, earned 17.6 billion in revenue in 2018.

That same year more than 9 billion was spent on illegal drugs in the UK.

According to Dame Carol Blacks report on drugs published this week, the total cost to society by drug misuse in terms of health, crime and other problems is 20 billion.

The drug trade is, in fact, an industry and the collateral cost the thousands of lives lost each year up and down the United Kingdom is simply the price of doing business.

So, for two days this week, the great and the good met in Glasgow to discuss how best to tackle the drugs problem.

Both events the first organised by the Scottish Government, the second by the UK Government started from different places. Both were wrong.

Tuesdays event, at least, recognised that the drug epidemic cannot be curtailed by law enforcement and that, at best, all we can do is try to minimise the harm caused by drugs.

The first couple of hours were given over to various people from Glasgow arguing for the UK Government to give them the power to create a safe injecting room.

There are, we were told, around 500 hardcore drug users in Glasgow city centre, where such a facility would be based and where, in recent years, an outbreak of HIV has occurred due to users sharing their works.

Businesses and residents alike believe the safe consumption room would save lives and help stop the proliferation of drug paraphernalia littering their streets.

They are plausible, convincing arguments. But wrong.

The Scottish Government should not be calling for power to open a safe consumption room, it should be calling for drug laws to be completely devolved.

Because on Wednesday, the UK Government not only ruled out a safe consumption room, policing minister Kit Malthouse made clear UK drugs policy will remain on the same, doomed track it has been on for decades.

Mr Malthouse said he maintains an open mind but believes focusing on disrupting the organised crime networks that push drugs into our communities will, with improvement treatment, save lives.

There is no evidence to suggest enforcement, the war on drugs, is winnable, if it ever was.

Drugs have been in our communities for decades.

Everyone is familiar with the Trainspotting-generation, the so-called older generation of heroin users whose decades of addiction is now costing them their lives. Yet more than half of Scotlands 1,187 drug-related deaths in 2018 were people under the age of 44.

Thats to say, people who were not yet 16 when the 1980s ended. It is a growing problem, not a historical one.

We need to be honest rather than falling back on tough guy talk about cracking down on dealers.

Drugs are a 9 billion industry and those who make money through it from the Afghan and Pakistani farmers with their poppy crops to the Liverpudlian gangs sending couriers to Dundee will find a way to keep making profit.

Drugs can be harmful, we know that. The cost to society from crime as people steal to pay for their habits is huge, the violence that is carried out by drug gangs is horrific.

The harm users inflict on themselves Tuesdays summit heard of maggot-infested wounds being relatively common is terrifying but the stigma of criminality stops many people seeking help until it is too late.

To solve the drug problem we need to stop worrying about the drugs and let capitalism carry the load.

If we want to protect people, lets protect them from the pushers and the squalor that comes with addiction rather than the substances themselves, at least initially.

Lets decriminalise drugs like heroin and wipe out the black market that way, then funnel those users to help they need to get clean.

Because two days of talking wont help, and neither is expecting the same old strategies to produce different results.

Life after death

The generosity of Dundonians knows no bounds. It emerged this week a disproportionately high number of people donate their bodies to Dundee University for medical science.

The university has been gifted 465 cadavers since 2014. Only Glasgow home of an anatomy museum that can genuinely be called Scotlands ickiest museum received more.

I, however, will not be donating my body to medical science, having already offered it to be stuffed and put on permanent display in the McManus once I pop my clogs. I could even be dressed in amusing costumes when the occasion demands it, like a Dundonian Manneken Pis.

For some reason, the museum has not responded to any of my calls.

Visit link:

Saturday Journal: If we do the same old things, we'll get the same old results - The Courier

Tucker Carlson: Everyone in the 2020 Democratic field has been diminished. Their ideas are absurd – Fox News

Tuesday night's Democratic forum on CBS wasn't the final primary debate of this season, but it's likely the last one that will matter. Between now and the next debate, a total of 21 states -- and that includes the biggest ones, California and Texas -- will hold their primaries. By then, it will almost certainly be over.

So you think the candidates would use the time to talk about things that voters cared deeply about. And for a brief moment, one of them actually did that. In his first answer, Bernie Sanders brought up wages. He said they ought to rise faster, which is true.

TRUMP CAMPAIGN ANNOUNCES 'COMMUNITY CENTERS' INITIATIVE TO ATTRACT BLACK VOTERS

Now, how could wages possibly go up with the open borders Sanders is demanding? That's an unanswerable question. But at least he mentioned it and that's exactly why he is the front-runner. When you talk about things people care about, they respond.

Michael Bloomberg is not the front-runner; he'd like to be. When given his chance to speak, Bloomberg went right to the issue he believes voters care about most -- the fact that Bernie Sanders is a secret Russian agent.

Mike Bloomberg: Vladimir Putinthinks that Donald Trump should be president of the United States and that's why Russia is helping you get elected so you'll lose to him.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.: Oh, Mr. Bloomberg --

So that's what Bloomberg's consultants told him to say. The lesson here is obvious: Go into political consulting -- even dumb people get rich.

At least one audience in America was powerfully moved by Bloomberg's attack -- the other candidates. At the very mention of Vladimir Putin, the stage erupted. Suddenly the debate sounded like a radical book club from the 1970s, old people yelling about the Cold War. "Russia! Russia! Russia!"

Pete Buttigieg, who is 38 but seems at least a century older, jumped in with his theory. What Trump and his paymaster Vladimir Putin actually wants, explained the tiny robot from South Bend, is political chaos. Buttigieg seemed totally convinced that no one had ever said that before.

At this point, the moderators at CBS just gave up. The chaos Putin is hoping for descended on the debate stage. Sanders decided it was a perfect opportunity to indulge his real passion, which is attacking America, a country he clearly hates.

Here he is explaining that the American criminal justice system is actually more repressive than communist China's.

Sanders: We have a criminal justice system today that is not only broken, it is racist. It got more people in jail than any other country on Earth, including China. One of the reasons for that is a horrific war on drugs.

Oh, the war on drugs. Bernie Sanders talks about that in every speech he gives. A declining country with a sad underemployed middle class obviously needs to smoke a ton more weed. That's Bernie's solution to the malaise --fire up a bowl, numb out, maybe you won't notice.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

So where's all this weed going to come from? Well, Bernie has got a plan for that, too. Black people are going to sell it to you. No kidding.

Sanders: And I'll tell you what else we're going to do. We're going to provide help to the African-American, Latino and Native-American community to start businesses to sell legal marijuana rather than let a few corporations control the legalized marijuana market.

That's a real clip, by the way. So first, they fill black neighborhoods with abortion clinics. Now, their front-runner is encouraging more black kids to sell drugs. But somehow this is the party that loves black America. It doesn't sound like it.

But whatever. Joe Biden soon changed the subject by making very loud noises. Biden has lost his ability to speak clearly, and that's got to be frustrating for anyone. In Biden's case, it's led to a series of rage eruptions.

Joe Biden, former vice president: You talk about -- whether we're talking about with Bernie. Bernie, in fact, hasn't passed much of anything. The fact of the matter is --

Tom Steyer, billionaire hedge fund manager and activist: I get to answer that.

Biden: Look, the fact is --

Steyer: You're out of time.

Biden: I'm not out of time. You spoke overtime, and I am going to talk. Here's the deal. Here is the deal. The fact of the matter is, look at what's happening here. Look at what's happening here --

At the very mention of Vladimir Putin, the stage erupted. Suddenly the debate sounded like a radical book club from the 1970s, old people yelling about the Cold War. "Russia! Russia! Russia!"

The crowd roared, because screaming always elicits roars from crowds. Our animal brains at work. But for those who are trying to follow what Biden was actually saying -- deaf people, for example, reading it at home on closed caption -- it was a profoundly confusing moment.

By the end, Biden's train of thought didn't simply get lost. It hopped the tracks and became a fiery derailment plunging off the bridge into the gorge below.

Biden: I would make it clear ... I'd make it clear to China. We are going to continue to move closer to make sure that we can,in fact, prevent China -- prevent North Korea -- from launching missiles to take them down. And if we don't -- why am I stopping? No one else stops.

"Why am I stopping," he asked.Well, because disjointed sentence fragments are counterproductive in a presidential campaign.

The good news is, at least Biden still knows a verbal cul de sac when he hits one. A few months from now, he'll be reciting Allen Ginsberg poems to strangers at bus stops. He's going fast.

Elizabeth Warren was there, too. Warren is not going to be president. That's a good thing. She's awful, maybe the most unpleasant human being ever to run for president in this country. You'd be in Paraguay by the end of the first Elizabeth Warren administration just to stop the noise.

Warren seems to know this. She can tell that she is doomed. If nothing else, she's not stupid. And she's decided to spend her remaining time destroying Michael Bloomberg.

And really that's a nice way to go out if you think about it. It's a service to the country. But, unfortunately on Tuesday night, it didn't work. Instead, Warren just humiliated herself.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.: I was visibly pregnant. The principal wished me luck and gave my job to someone else. Pregnancy discrimination?You bet.

But I was 21 years old. I didn't have a union to protect me. I didn't have any federal law on my side. So I packed up my stuff, and I went home.

At least I didn't have a boss who said to me kill it that way that Mayor Bloomberg is said to have said to one of his pregnant employees.

Bloomberg: I never said that. Oh, come on!

Whoa, whoa, wait a second! We have news emerging. Did you notice here Elizabeth Warren say there are circumstances in which encouraging abortion might be wrong? Oh, don't tell Planned Parenthood -- she'll lose her funding.

Meanwhile, Warren's story about her own pregnancy could have been the most depressing moment of the night. The story is a lie. Everyone knows it is. It has been conclusively debunked by her on tape.

But Warren keeps telling the story anyway, with exactly the same inflections and pauses and hand gestures. Keep in mind, this is a person who was once a tenured Harvard law professor. She wrote a genuinely good book at one point. People respected her.

Now? Well, now, Warren's up there degrading herself with some transparent whopperdesigned to show you how oppressed she is.

By her time is over. Warren will be Hillary Clinton pacing her backyard with a bottle of wine and sending bitter tweets about Trump at midnight. No normal person will have lunch with her after this. It's pathetic and sad.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

But it's not just her -- it's universal this year. Everyone in the Democratic field has been greatly diminished by this, and it's not because they're all bad people. Not all of them are bad people. It's because their ideas are absurd.

Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on Feb. 26, 2020.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM TUCKER CARLSON

Read the original post:

Tucker Carlson: Everyone in the 2020 Democratic field has been diminished. Their ideas are absurd - Fox News

‘Narcos: Mexico’s New Finale Pulled Off A Confrontation That Stands Among The Greats – UPROXX

Narcos: Mexico, despite being as intense and violent as its predecessor (and high on its own supply), is becoming masterful at setting up quietly resonant closing moments while not taking the cliffhanger route. And I can appreciate that. In the streaming era, when entire seasons drop at once, cliffhangers are almost cruel when an audience must wait over a year to find out what happened. Lets get real, too: Narcos franchise fans tend to binge hard and fast. Cliffhangers are not needed here to stoke ongoing interest. Closing a season with understated moments is also practical because the War on Drugs wont ever end. It could be exhausting to keep watching finales like the ones from the Escobar years (him refusing to surrender and later going down on a rooftop) that dont work well with recent history. If that pattern continued, wed eventually see El Chapo pop into a tunnel and wave goodbye for a year. It would be beyond parody. I do hope the show sticks with reflective resolutions that suggest whats to come.

Before we dig in here, heres another reason why Narcos beats every other TV franchise when it comes to promo images. This image up there ^^^ of Scoot McNairys mustache? Netflix used that image for months to tease this season, and it illustrated a long-awaited confrontation. When the moment arrived, the showdown didnt go as planned. There wasnt a payoff for the characters, but for the audience? Hell, yeah. It was great to see two lions (mentally) circle each other while conceding that theyve both lost the battle.

Granted, Narcos: Mexicos second season did lead up to its final minutes with a mayhem-filled scene of revenge full of climactic adrenaline. This was both obligatory and necessary, to illuminate the truth of what was soon to be stated by Flix Gallardo. In particular, the shoe literally dropped on the remnants of Gallardos cartel leadership when Clavel gets beaten to death in a shopping mall while a spitting Chapo witnesses.

The franchise has held a lot of moments like these, obviously. Theyre bread and butter and gruesome and all that, but theyre almost operatic in their execution. Theyre also sometimes (disturbingly) funny, as with the bloodbath last season where Don Neto kept wearing his headphones. Yet theres a ton of value in quietly forecasting the fights to come. Moments of conversation allow the corrupted soul of the franchise to flourish. In this universe a very real one, although dramatized by Netflix justice cant win. There wont ever be a happy ending in this saga. To that inevitability, last years finale made a fantastic set-up: Scoots character, who narrated all along, finally comes into view as dogged DEA agent Walt Breslin. The assumption was that wed get to see Scoot kick some ass this season. And he did kick some ass. One and done is how the fledgling DEA wanted to do this thing, but its not quite that simple.

Part of that has to do with that unending reality of the War on Drugs. Also, as we learn by midseason, Walt a composite character based upon an amalgamation of multiple DEA agents wields a dual purpose. Hes damaged, and even more than seeking revenge for Kiki Camerenas death, Walt struggles with immense guilt over not being able to save his brother from ODing. All season, he hunted Flix Gallardo, who screwed himself over in his eternal quest for power. He betrayed too many people and proved that hes not so indispensable in guiding Mexicos drug empire. The final scene of the season shows Flix in jail after Walt felt compelled to visit. Walt finally stares down what hes been chasing, and he expects to find closure. He wants to see some remorse materialize in Flixs face when he holds that photo of Kiki up to the glass.

Not that Flix showed his cards. He showed everyone elses cards and taunted the hell out of Walt, who we saw alternately exude bravado and squirm with discomfort. I love that the show fictionalized this conversation between a real-life drug lord and a made-up character. They took it in one hell of a different direction than what we usually see in the hero-vs-villain dichotomy. And I love that theyre toying with the were not so different, you and I clich without actually saying it. They dont need to say it, since about 800 recent movies and TV shows have articulated that line. But the sentiment is here.

Dont get me wrong, man. I also giggle every time some villain offers up, Were not so different, you and I. Admit it, you get a little giddy when you hear it happen, too. But its rewarding to see such dynamics bypass the standard entry point and dive deeper. Its more personal. Not so black-and-white. That a series did this in the middle of a run is gutsy without a renewal announcement in hand, but Narcos has earned that confidence. Five seasons in, and this franchise has many more stories left to tell.

This is where I can quickly draw attention to a few standout comparisons to this Walt-Flix conversation, including the Heat diner scene. Showrunner Eric Newman told Collider that he drew inspiration from how Heat brought the cop-criminal dichotomy face-to-face. The diner scene between Al Pacino and Robert De Niro is one that people watched on repeat (lets forget that Righteous Kill failed to replicate the effect). Incredibly, it was the first scene that Pacino and De Niro had ever filmed together, and their connection felt organic. The scene made it clear that their characters respected each other despite knowing that, eventually, shots would be fired.

Theres some very reluctant respect on display in the Narcos: Mexico conversation, not on the same level as Heat, but it resonates in a similar way. Two driven, devoted, and brilliant sides of the same coin are butting heads and know theres no compromise to be found. Also, more than a little bit, Im reminded of the final Justified scene here. That one revolved around a very different dynamic and personal history between Raylan and Boyd and their coal-digging unity, but theres still the same magnetic draw here. Raylan felt it necessary to deliver a message to Boyd in person, and we needed to see this Harlan reunion happen, even if these two would never be on the same side of the law.

Again, the dynamic of Walt and Flix is quite different than these other two examples, especially when it comes to Raylan and Boyd, who had some love for each other, even if Raylan would never admit it. Its a conversation thats still regarded fondly, and the Walt-Flix meeting deserves to be remembered for decades to come. The season needed to feature a face-to-face meeting between the pair and the show executed it at the right time. Im glad the moment wasnt squandered during Flixs arrest, for the visitation scene isolates the duo and gives their dueling personalities the appropriate spotlight.

In only a few short minutes, we saw the culmination of what these two men had discovered about themselves. Walt visibly realized that his tireless and obsessive pursuit hadnt yielded the hard-hitting results that he wanted regarding the drug trade. Despite his displays of smugness, he couldnt maintain the facade when Flix began to prophesize the horrors to come. Flix, of course, admitted that his greed caused his downfall. Hes also largely spot-on with his predictions, and we see the new cartel heads boozily meet and call a truce. And Flix lays it all out there to Walt. He predicts who will be running his plazas, which are becoming their own cartels. Tijuana, Juarez, the Gulf, and Sinaloa all get divvied up with Chapo Guzmn positioned for a future Sinaloa takeover. They all agree to respect each other and prosper, but Felix knows thats not going to be how things work out.

Its an interesting thing, the War on Drugs. The winners of wars are the ones customarily entitled to tell the tales as they see fit, but no one wins here. Walt expected to walk into that visitation booth and make Flix feel like utter garbage while thrusting that photo of Kiki in his face. Hes wanted to do this for years. Thats what kept him going on the surface. He also expected to feel less restless after reminding Flix that he got sold out for a trade deal, but Flix knew that Walt held no cards. Theres nothing that Walt can do for him, so Flix isnt going to give him anything tangible. Yet in a way, and even though Flix is presenting the appearance that hes giving nothing to Walt, hes having the most honest onscreen conversation that hes had with anyone.

Flix takes Walt to terrifying places during this relatively short conversation. He digs into the strengths of the various cartels, and outlines their strengths and weaknesses, and their various strategies while striving for dominance. He even gleefully suggests that Walt take out the Juarez head, but more importantly, Flix knew how to get under Walts skin. And to a lesser degree, vice versa. The two of them picked at each other, and neither one of them won the confrontation, much like the War on Drugs. They smirk at each other, almost in the same way that De Niro and Pacino did in Heat only without knowing that their beef wont be resolved with one heist. Instead, this war will rage on indefinitely, and Flix calls it when he tells Walt that youre going to miss me.

Yes, Walt is gonna miss Flix. I mean, the guy motivated years of his existence. The tigers now in the cage, and where does that leave Walt? Ultimately, hes behind a desk now, and all of the other animals are on the loose. Its difficult to envision Netflix continuing this series without putting Walt back into action in some capacity. Obviously, the third season will focus on the unleashed circus of animals that Flix references. Chapo Guzmn should make a lot more progress with his tunneling endeavors, and Amado Carrillo Fuentes is likely going to be a major focus. Walt will be back in some way, but will we see Flix again? Maybe not, and thats only one more reason why this quiet confrontation will resonate for many years to come.

Narcos: Mexicos second season is currently streaming on Netflix.

See more here:

'Narcos: Mexico's New Finale Pulled Off A Confrontation That Stands Among The Greats - UPROXX

Dimond: We need a smarter war on drugs – The Winchester Star

Did we learn nothing from the so-called crack-cocaine plague of the 80s and 90s?

For those with fuzzy memories, the media back then erroneously and breathlessly declared that crack use had reached epidemic proportions. Newsweek declared crack was the most addictive drug known to man. The full truth would eventually come out. Crack was only half the problem.

Crack is created when powder cocaine is mixed with baking soda and water and cooked down into rocklike nuggets to be smoked in a pipe. Its a relatively cheap high and favored by those in poorer neighborhoods. The more expensive powder cocaine was snorted primarily by higher-income Caucasians. What was happening in the 80s wasnt just a crack epidemic; it was also a cocaine epidemic and poor and rich alike were addicted.

Congress bought the fake news that crack was the real problem and passed the ill-conceived Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which set a mandatory sentence of five years in federal prison for anyone convicted of possessing 5 grams of crack (equal to 1 teaspoon), even if it was their first offense. Thousands of mostly poor, young African American men were imprisoned, their families torn apart. Powder cocaine users were only sentenced to that mandatory five years in prison if they possessed 500 grams (or over a pound) of the drug. The racial disparity was painfully obvious.

The overcrowding of our prison system began. More importantly, the crime and drug problems in America did not lessen with these tough-on-crime sentences. Things got worse over the years, as addicts moved on to black tar heroin, meth, ketamine, ecstasy and more.

Today, the deadliest drug is reported to be fentanyl not the medically approved pharmaceutical fentanyl, an opioid that treats severe pain, but rather the illegally produced fentanyl, which is mostly smuggled into the U.S. via illicit laboratories in China and Mexico. Tens of thousands of Americans have died from fentanyl overdoses and other similar chemical compounds called analogues.

There are several bills pending in Congress now aimed at curbing distribution and use of fentanyl and its analogues. Some seek to label the addicting chemicals as highly regulated, Schedule I dangerous opioids, which opponents say could adversely affect future scientific research. But guess what is also being considered as a solution to this deadly problem? You guessed it mandatory prison sentences for drug addicts and street dealers in possession of drugs containing fentanyl and its close cousins.

Reality check: Street-level sellers and buyers have no way of knowing if their drugs include fentanyl. Its added in by criminal chemical cookers to give their drugs that extra punch that keeps customers coming back.

Attorney General William Barr hit the nail on the head at his confirmation hearing last year when he said, The head of the snake is outside the country, and the place to fight this aggressively is at the source more than on the street corner. Barr added, We could stack up generation after generation of people in prison and it will still keep on coming. Ironically, Barr has recently campaigned for passage of two bills that fail to focus on stopping fentanyl at the source.

When will lawmakers understand that locking up addicts and low-level dealers doesnt stop the problem? It just creates another fractured generation of ex-cons and ever-mounting incarceration costs for us to pay. Going after the source of the product that poisons so many is a much smarter long-term tactic.

Spend more money interdicting shipments of fentanyl (and all illegal opioids!) coming into this country via the U.S. Postal Service. Outfit agencies like the Customs and Border Protection and the Drug Enforcement Administration with more personnel and technology to stop drug shipments headed this way, whether theyre arriving via air, sea, land or border tunnels. Make foreign aid dependent on whether the receiving country helps stop the flow of drugs into the U.S. And how about focusing on job training for convicted dealers and truly meaningful treatment for addicts so that upon their release, they become taxpaying citizens with decent jobs?

We need a modern-day war on drugs one that is strong and focused on the source of the problem, not just on the addicted victims drugs create.

Diane Dimond writes for Creators.

Read this article:

Dimond: We need a smarter war on drugs - The Winchester Star

Is America Ready to Decriminalize Meth and Heroin? – National Review

Pete Buttigieg at a campaign event in Nashua, N.H., February 9, 2020. (Eric Thayer/Reuters)

In 1969, the height of the Sixties cultural revolution, Pew found that only 12 percent of Americans supported the legalization of pot. Fifty years later, 67 percent of voters support it. Virtually every candidate on the Democratic presidential slate backs some form of marijuana legalization. Even the Trump administration has left states to manage their own business on the matter. This year, at least one candidate supports going further and decriminalizing all drugs.

On Sunday, Fox News Chris Wallace pushed Iowa caucus winner Pete Buttigieg to explain his support for the decriminalization of all narcotics.

First, he asked Buttigieg whether laws act as a deterrent to those willing trying meth and heroin for the first time. Buttigieg dissembled, and never answered the question. One supposes, this is America, Chris, and if someone wants to freebase its none of my business, is still tad bit too libertarian for the average American voter.

That happens to be my philosophical position: Americans should be free to ingest whatever they choose cigarette smoke, trans fats, mega-sodas, and/or methamphetamine. Im skeptical that significant number of people will begin shooting heroin simply because possession of small amounts of the drug have been decriminalized. We already enforce our drug laws arbitrarily.

My rational self is forced to concede that on the margins, people already inclined to do hard narcotics will find it easier to obtain them if we decriminalize, and that may cost lives. Theres plenty of evidence that alcohol consumption fell during Prohibition and then increased again when it was overturned. In Seattle, where drug possession has been effectively legalized, the trend of rising overdoses hasnt changed.

Its a banal observation, no doubt, to say that there are no easy answers. There are, however, some obvious questions to consider: Is the War on Drugs worth the cost? Is it worth throwing non-violent criminals into prison rather than rehab? Is it worth spending billions on police-state efforts that do little to mitigate the problem rather than diverting those funds to figuring out other ways to combat addiction?

Yet when Wallace pushed Buttigieg to clarify what decriminalization might entail, he couldnt provide any specifics, declaring that we shouldnt worry about the legal niceties but rather about the failures of the drug war.

Well, the difference between a felony, a misdemeanor, or no punishment at all isnt a legal nicety, its the distinction between criminalization and decriminalization, as anyone with a criminal record will tell you.

Specifics are going to be important. Most Americans have had at last some interaction with pot, which, though it might make us useless or stupid, wont kill us. When you start talking about meth and heroin, average Americans probably start picturing drug supermarkets on Main Street, kids shooting up behind 7/11s, and resultant criminality.

To this point, Buttigieg, who is further to the left than is generally understood, seems unable to defend his position effectively or even fully. Itll be interesting to see how the issue plays out if he solidifies as a major contender though I suspect the majority of the electorate isnt ready for legal meth.

Read the original here:

Is America Ready to Decriminalize Meth and Heroin? - National Review

El Chapo’s Conviction Changed Everything and Nothing About the War on Drugs – VICE

Bureau of Prisons Inmate No. 89914-053 spends his days alone inside a 75-square-foot cell in Florence, Colorado. His only furniture is a concrete slab with a flimsy mattress, and a stainless steel toilet and sink. His narrow slit of a window affords no view of the snow-capped Rocky Mountain peaks that stretch for miles in every direction.

This is the end of the road for Joaqun El Chapo Guzmn Loera: ADX Florence, a federal prison better known as the Alcatraz of the Rockies. Here he is surrounded by steel doors, concrete walls, maze-like corridors, hundreds of surveillance cameras, and layers of electrified fencing topped with razor wire. Nobody is going to push him out the front door in a laundry cart. There are ground sensors in place to detect tunneling. This time, theres no escaping.

February 12 marks one year since a dozen Brooklyn jurors handed down a unanimous guilty verdict against the worlds most infamous drug kingpin, condemning him to a life sentence with no chance for parole. Chapo is now effectively cut off from the world, but the chain reaction of events triggered by his capture and conviction is still unfolding far beyond the prison walls. In Mexico, his Sinaloa cartel remains a dominant force. And in the U.S., his former drug-trade associates are cycling in and out of federal custody.

Just last month Genaro Garca Luna, once Mexicos top law enforcement official, pleaded not guilty to federal charges that he accepted millions of dollars in bribes from the Sinaloa cartel. His indictment was the other shoe dropping on one of the many bombshell allegations that emerged from Chapos epic three-month trial, when one witness testified to hand-delivering suitcases full of cash to Garca Luna in exchange for protection and information. That accusation was soon eclipsed by testimony that former Mexican President Enrique Pea Nieto solicited a $250 million bribe from Chapo and his partner Ismael El Mayo Zambada.

Its hard to say the Sinaloa cartel is weaker its hard to put metrics to what that really means.

Perhaps Garca Luna, who was living a comfortable life in Miami when he was arrested and charged in the same Brooklyn court where Chapo was prosecuted, hoped his alleged corruption had simply gone overlooked. Now the question is whether Pea Nieto who has denied ever taking a bribe is the next target for the feds, or someone else.

Maybe it will be ex-president Felipe Caldern, the man who picked Garca Luna to oversee the military offensive against the cartels that began in 2006, leading to the arrests or deaths of many top traffickers but plunging Mexico into a downward spiral of violence that continues today. The approach, dubbed the kingpin strategy, has splintered the cartels into warring factions, fueling internecine conflicts and bloody turf wars. Each new year brings a record number of murders, with 34,582 officially tallied in 2019. The true death toll, obscured by forced disappearances and bodies hidden away in mass graves, is likely far worse.

Caldern has long been accused of favoring Chapos organization during his presidency, which ended in 2012 with the top leadership of the Sinaloa cartel suspiciously intact compared to rival groups. Caldern was indignant when I asked him about this in a 2018 interview, insisting he established a clear rule of no agreements with anyone. But Garca Luna apparently did have an agreement, a very lucrative one at that. His case is proof that the Mexican government isnt waging any sort of war on drugs. There is a war, but its for control over drug trafficking and the money it brings. Mexicos government has always been complicit in the drug trade. Chapos trial just cast a spotlight on that ugly truth for the first time in a U.S. courtroom.

Mexicos current president, Andrs Manuel Lpez Obrador, campaigned on the slogan Abrazos no balazos or Hugs not bullets, promising to curb the ceaseless violence and root out corruption. Yet he, too, was implicated in bribery during Chapos trial, when an unsealed court filing referenced an alleged payoff from the Sinaloa cartel to his campaign manager during his failed 2006 presidential bid. Much like the allegation against Garca Luna, it quickly blew over amid the trials telenovela-like plot twists.

Lpez Obrador created a new military unit, the National Guard, to combat organized crime, but so far it has failed spectacularly. In October, soldiers detained one of Chapos sons, 29-year-old Ovidio Guzmn Lpez, in the Sinaloan capital Culiacn, but they were forced to release him after hundreds of heavily-armed cartel foot soldiers laid siege to the city and threatened to execute the families of the men involved in the capture operation. Eight people were killed in the standoff, which unfolded in real time on social media. It was a major embarrassment for Lpez Obrador, and a visceral indication that Chapos downfall apparently did nothing to diminish the power of his cartel. His sons including Ovidio and his brothers Ivn, Alfredo, and Joaqun, collectively known as Los Chapitos just picked up where Dad left off.

LISTEN: "Chapo: Kingpin on Trial" for free, exclusively on Spotify.

Ray Donovan, who oversaw the hunt for Chapo as the former chief of the DEAs Special Operations Division, told me the botched Ovidio arrest is indicative of the fact that the Sinaloa cartel is still there, and it is indicative of the fact that they still have millions of dollars at their disposal, and resources and men and manpower, and they are capable of continuing the drug trafficking business.

Now leading the DEAs New York division, where he keeps one of Chapos trademark black baseball caps on display like a trophy behind his desk, Donovan argued that Chapo was the Sinaloa cartels innovator and said taking him out changes how they have to continue to operate. Chapos conviction, he said, sent a message to every other cartel leader that they, too, could eventually face justice in the U.S., but its hard to say the Sinaloa cartel is weaker its hard to put metrics to what that really means.

Last month, U.S. authorities found a tunnel that stretched for three-quarters of a mile from Tijuana to San Diego, equipped with an elevator, ventilation, and a rail cart to ferry drugs under the border. It was the longest smuggling tunnel ever discovered, about 4,000 feet longer than the first one Chapo was credited with building. The day after the recent tunnel discovery, three Sinaloa cartel members escaped from a prison in Mexico City with suspected help from guards. Clearly, the innovations that Chapo left behind are still very much in use.

Is there futility in what we do? Are we playing whack-a-mole? I think its showing the strength of what our system does; there's a purpose for it. There's a need to hold these people accountable.

With Chapo out of the picture, American media and law enforcement have begun to hype a new Public Enemy No. 1, Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, better known as El Mencho. His Jalisco New Generation Cartel is on the ascent, reportedly flooding U.S. cities with meth while his henchmen commit gruesome acts of violence as they battle rivals in Mexico. Donovan called Menchos gang the fast-growing cartel in Mexico, with global reach. And he emphasized that the U.S. and Mexico are still working together to catch and extradite him and others: When its all said and done, well continue to pursue these individuals with our counterparts down there.

READ: From 'the Alcatraz of the Rockies' to the streets.

Chapos trial was supposed to prove that the system works, to show that even the biggest, baddest kingpin can be captured, extradited, and convicted. But at what cost? And as a means to what ends? The actual taxpayer bill for the trial has never been calculated, but it surely runs into the millions. The ostensible purpose was to show that anyone can be brought to justice, but in some ways it revealed how warped our collective sense of justice has become.

There was never any real doubt about Chapos guilt. The absurdity of his defense that he was merely the fall guy for the real boss, El Mayo was laid bare by mountains of evidence, including thousands of incriminating BlackBerry messages that showed Chapo to be a micromanaging control freak, who obsessively monitored the status of even lowly marijuana shipments. But the case was truly made on the testimony of the cooperators, 14 people who were once among Chapos closest associates, who agreed to take the stand in exchange for leniency in their own cases.

Now that a year has passed, some of those cooperators are already reaping the benefits of their deals. Jorge Cifuentes-Villa was a major Colombian cocaine trafficker who testified about gifting Chapo a helicopter and sending his younger brother Alex to serve as Chapos lieutenant in the mountains of Sinaloa. Bureau of Prisons records indicate that Cifuentes-Villa was released from federal custody on Dec. 5, 2019, less than seven years after his extradition, even though he was eligible for a life sentence.

The list goes on. El Mayos son and heir apparent, Vicente Zambada-Niebla, is set for release in 2022. Court records indicate that Dmaso Lpez Nuez, aka El Licenciado, Chapos former right-hand man, may be getting his life sentence reduced, though the exact terms of his deal remain under seal. His son, known as Mini Lic, is also in U.S. custody and cooperating with the feds, though last month Mexican authorities issued an arrest warrant for him because hes suspected of the murder of a prominent Mexican journalist an allegation that directly contradicts his fathers testimony during the trial.

READ: The 10 wildest moments and stories from El Chapo's trial.

The U.S Attorneys Office in Brooklyn declined to comment when asked about the various deals given to the Chapo cooperators and their current whereabouts.

In her first interview since the Chapo trial, Andrea Goldbarg, the original prosecutor in the case, told me the investigation, extradition, and conviction would not have been possible without help from cooperators.

We can do wiretaps, but in order to understand the day-to-day workings, the power structure, how they organize that comes through people who were within the organization, she said. And when people make a decision that theyre going to plead guilty and accept responsibility and assist the U.S. government by cooperating, they do it at extreme risk to themselves and their families.

A career narcotics prosecutor with the Department of Justice, Goldbarg spent 10 years working on the Chapo case. It began with the prosecution of a Colombian cartel boss known as Chupeta, one of the Sinaloa cartels main cocaine suppliers, who later testified against Chapo. Goldbarg pointed to Colombia as proof that the kingpin strategy can work. The U.S.-led takedowns of Pablo Escobars Medelln cartel and his rivals in the Cali cartel are partly credited with making Colombia one of the more stable and prosperous countries in Latin America.

But after nearly 50 years of efforts to stamp out the drug trade, cocaine production in Colombia is currently at an all-time high. Goldbarg blames the resurgence on the Colombian governments decision to end aerial eradication of coca plants. But just like in Mexico corruption and impunity remain factors in allowing the drug trade to flourish.

There are degrees of corruption, Goldbarg said. There are just economic realities of Latin America. When you have someone who is a police officer who makes $250 a month, which is barely subsistence where hes living, and you have someone saying, Ill give you $2,500 to look the other way, and if you don't take it, Ill kill you, what are they going to do? That's the reality of corruption. But then you have the much higher levels that allow this system to perpetuate.

Goldbarg said the Chapo trial was very impactful because it allowed Latin Americans to understand the transparency of the system in the United States, though many records in Chapos case and others related to it remain under seal and shrouded in secrecy. When I pointed to the recent incident with Chapos son Ovidio in Culiacn and asked whether Mexico is really better off now that Chapo has been convicted, she defended the U.S. approach to the war on drugs, arguing that doing nothing letting cartel leaders like Chapo remain free would be an unacceptable alternative.

Is there futility in what we do? Are we playing whack-a-mole? she asked rhetorically. I think its showing the strength of what our system does; there's a purpose for it. There's a need to hold these people accountable. Thats what we need to do, and we should continue to do it until this issue is resolved.

On the eve of Chapos trial, I interviewed Olivia and Mia Flores, the wives of twin brothers from Chicago who became high-level traffickers in the Sinaloa cartel. Their husbands, Pedro and Margarito Flores, eventually had a change of heart and switched sides, agreeing to secretly record Chapo for the DEA before turning themselves in. When I caught up with Olivia again last month, she said both her husband and her brother-in-law, who testified at the trial, would be out of prison soon, within the year, after serving 14-year sentences.

I dont feel like there was a get out of jail free card, she said. Everybody knows that the government depends on cooperators. Without them, Chapo wouldn't be sitting in prison. He wouldn't be in the U.S. They wouldn't be extraditing all these cartel figures from Mexico. There would be no justice if it wasnt for cooperators.

Like Donovan, Olivia told me El Chapos conviction sent a message that nobody is above the law, but she also conceded theres always going to be another boogeyman. Right now its El Mencho. Tomorrow it will be somebody else. No one is invincible; the U.S. is going to make you pay, she said. Its never-ending, its like a never-ending cycle.

Olivia and Mia wrote a memoir about their lives in the Sinaloa cartel, and theyre now working to turn it into a movie. Olivia was a big fan of Hustlers, and hopes Jennifer Lopez will produce and star in their film, but shes quick to note that she doesnt want to glamorize the narco lifestyle, saying she initially shared her story to show people what it was like to be in that cartel world, the killings, the murders.

Its never been easy to separate the grim reality of Chapo from his portrayal in pop culture as a charming rogue, a self-made man who rose from abject poverty to a ranking on the Forbes billionaires list. To some in Sinaloa, he remains a modern-day Robin Hood, credited with building churches, paving roads, and pumping cash into the local economy while sticking it to the man. Hes the mastermind behind drug tunnels under the border. Hes the peoples outlaw, a real-life Tony Montana in Scarface a bad guy, sure, but at least he had the guts to be what he wanted to be.

Chapo understood the power of his mystique as well as anyone. Witnesses testified during the trial that he wanted to turn his life story into a Hollywood movie. He arranged to meet with actors Kate del Castillo and Sean Penn, a bit of hubris that contributed to his downfall. Even from behind bars, his legend continues to grow. Hell be a lead character on the new season of Narcos: Mexico. At least four books about him and his trial have either been published or are set for release in the coming year. His wife recently appeared aboard a yacht on a reality-TV show called Cartel Crew. His daughter is hawking Chapo-brand beer and clothing in Mexico.

I asked Chapos lead trial attorney, Jeffrey Lichtman, how Chapo is holding up in prison. His client is housed in a special part of ADX called H-Unit, alongside several convicted terrorists. Hes under tight restrictions called Special Administrative Measures, which prevent him from communicating with anyone other than his lawyers and a few close relatives. His family visits, mail, and limited phone calls are closely monitored. Anyone caught passing messages for Chapo faces prison themselves, so Lichtman was cagey.

Chapo mostly passes the time watching cable TV on a tiny 13-inch screen, Lichtman said. He writes letters to his mother, sisters, and twin daughters, the few family members hes allowed to contact. Hes still in good spirits, despite his fate.

READ: These were El Chapo's final words before going to supermax.

Hes a pretty tough dude, he said. He always kept his sense of humor, every time I was with Chapo from the moment I met him in February 2017 to speaking to him now, every single conversation we have, were laughing at some point. Thats not how most clients are.

Lichtman reminisced about how every day of Chapos trial felt historic. It was always a spectacle, with courtroom theater that was equal parts comedy, horror, thriller, and drama. It was its own news cycle. In the end, Lichtman argued Chapo didnt get a fair shake.

It was America trying to show the world how special and just our legal system is, he said. I really think it failed. I think at the end of the day, there was such great effort to make it appear he received a fair trial, and then we found out the jury was knee-deep in inflammatory press reports, lying about it to the judge.

Lichtman was referring to my interview with an anonymous member of Chapos jury. That person described various degrees of juror misconduct, including the claim that at least five jurors disobeyed the judges orders and read news coverage about the trial, including the child rape allegations against Chapo that were not presented as evidence.

The person I interviewed didnt think those allegations changed anyones mind about the verdict, but they did say several people were concerned that he would spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement, which is exactly where he ended up. Chapos judge, Brian Cogan, denied a request for a new trial because of the reported juror misconduct, and Lichtman is now pursuing an appeal in the Second Circuit. He says Chapo is helping, working on the paperwork from his cell in ADX.

Getting the verdict overturned is the longest of shots, but its Chapos last best hope. The outcome of a second trial would likely be another conviction. If not, he would simply be tried in another court. No matter what happens, the U.S. isnt sending him home to Mexico for a family reunion. Chapo is gone for good, but that doesnt mean his story is done being written.

Cover: Collage by Hunter French / Images via Getty and AP

The rest is here:

El Chapo's Conviction Changed Everything and Nothing About the War on Drugs - VICE

Learn from the 80s, get a smart war on drugs – Albuquerque Journal

................................................................

The overcrowding of our prison system began. More importantly, the crime and drug problems in America did not lessen with these tough-on-crime sentences. Things got worse over the years as addicts moved on to black tar heroin, meth, Ketamine, Ecstasy and more.

Today, the deadliest drug is reported to be fentanyl. Not the medically approved pharmaceutical fentanyl, an opioid that treats severe pain, but rather illegally produced fentanyl mostly smuggled into the U.S. via illicit laboratories in China and Mexico. Tens of thousands of Americans have died from fentanyl overdoses and other similar chemical compounds called analogues.

There are several bills pending in Congress now aimed at curbing distribution and use of fentanyl and its analogues. Some seek to label the addicting chemicals as highly regulated Schedule 1 dangerous opioids, which opponents say could adversely affect future scientific research. But guess what is also being considered as a solution to this deadly problem? You guessed it mandatory prison sentences for drug addicts and street dealers in possession of drugs containing fentanyl and its close cousins.

Reality check: Street-level sellers and buyers have no way of knowing if their drugs include fentanyl. Its added in by criminal chemical cookers at the source to give their drugs that extra punch that keeps customers coming back. Attorney General William Barr hit the nail on the head at his confirmation hearing last year when he said, The head of the snake is outside the country, and the place to fight this aggressively is at the source more than on the street corner. Barr added, we could stack up generation after generation of people in prison, and it will still keep on coming. Yet ironically, Barr has recently campaigned for passage of two bills that fail to focus on stopping fentanyl at the source.

When will lawmakers understand that locking up addicts and low-level dealers doesnt stop the problem? It just creates another fractured generation of ex-cons and ever-mounting incarceration costs for us to pay. Going after the source of the product that poisons so many is a much smarter long-term tactic.

Spend more money interdicting shipments of fentanyl and all illegal drugs coming into this country via the U.S. Postal Service. Outfit agencies like Customs and Border Patrol and the Drug Enforcement Administration with more personnel and technology to stop drug shipments headed this way, be they arriving via air, sea, land or through border tunnels. Make foreign aid dependent on whether the receiving country helps stop the flow of drugs into the U.S. And how about focusing on job-training for convicted dealers and truly meaningful treatment for addicts so that upon their release they become tax-paying citizens with decent jobs?

We need a modern-day War on Drugs. One that is strong and focused on stopping both the source of the poison and the demand those drugs create.

http://www.DianeDimond.com; e-mail to Diane@DianeDimond.com.

Read more:

Learn from the 80s, get a smart war on drugs - Albuquerque Journal

Crime and Courts: We need a smarter war on drugs – Muskogee Daily Phoenix

Did we learn nothing from the so-called crack-cocaine plague of the '80s and '90s?

For those with fuzzy memories, the media back then erroneously and breathlessly declared that crack use had reached epidemic proportions. Newsweek declared crack was "the most addictive drug known to man." The full truth would eventually come out. Crack was only half the problem.

Crack is created when powder cocaine is mixed with baking soda and water and cooked down into rocklike nuggets to be smoked in a pipe. It's a relatively cheap high and favored by those in poorer neighborhoods. The more expensive powder cocaine was snorted primarily by higher-income Caucasians. What was happening in the '80s wasn't just a crack epidemic; it was also a cocaine epidemic and poor and rich alike were addicted.

Congress bought the fake news that crack was the real problem and passed the ill-conceived Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which set a mandatory sentence of five years in federal prison for anyone convicted of possessing 5 grams of crack (equal to 1 teaspoon), even if it was their first offense. Thousands of mostly poor, young African American men were imprisoned, their families torn apart. Powder cocaine users were only sentenced to that mandatory five years in prison if they possessed 500 grams (or over a pound) of the drug. The racial disparity was painfully obvious.

The overcrowding of our prison system began. More importantly, the crime and drug problems in America did not lessen with these tough-on-crime sentences. Things got worse over the years, as addicts moved on to "black tar" heroin, meth, ketamine, ecstasy and more.

Today, the deadliest drug is reported to be fentanyl not the medically approved pharmaceutical fentanyl, an opioid that treats severe pain, but rather the illegally produced fentanyl, which is mostly smuggled into the U.S. via illicit laboratories in China and Mexico. Tens of thousands of Americans have died from fentanyl overdoses and other similar chemical compounds called analogues.

There are several bills pending in Congress now aimed at curbing distribution and use of fentanyl and its analogues. Some seek to label the addicting chemicals as highly regulated, Schedule I dangerous opioids, which opponents say could adversely affect future scientific research. But guess what is also being considered as a solution to this deadly problem? You guessed it mandatory prison sentences for drug addicts and street dealers in possession of drugs containing fentanyl and its close cousins.

Reality check: Street-level sellers and buyers have no way of knowing if their drugs include fentanyl. It's added in by criminal "chemical cookers" to give their drugs that extra punch that keeps customers coming back.

Attorney General William Barr hit the nail on the head at his confirmation hearing last year when he said, "The head of the snake is outside the country, and the place to fight this aggressively is at the source more than on the street corner." Barr added, "We could stack up generation after generation of people in prison and it will still keep on coming." Ironically, Barr has recently campaigned for passage of two bills that fail to focus on stopping fentanyl at the source.

When will lawmakers understand that locking up addicts and low-level dealers doesn't stop the problem? It just creates another fractured generation of ex-cons and ever-mounting incarceration costs for us to pay. Going after the source of the product that poisons so many is a much smarter long-term tactic.

Spend more money interdicting shipments of fentanyl (and all illegal opioids!) coming into this country via the U.S. Postal Service. Outfit agencies like the Customs and Border Protection and the Drug Enforcement Administration with more personnel and technology to stop drug shipments headed this way, whether they're arriving via air, sea, land or border tunnels. Make foreign aid dependent on whether the receiving country helps stop the flow of drugs into the U.S. And how about focusing on job training for convicted dealers and truly meaningful treatment for addicts so that upon their release, they become taxpaying citizens with decent jobs?

We need a modern-day war on drugs one that is strong and focused on the source of the problem, not just on the addicted victims drugs create.

Diane Dimond is a syndicated columnist and television reporter of high-profile court cases.

Follow this link:

Crime and Courts: We need a smarter war on drugs - Muskogee Daily Phoenix

Editorial: A better way to take on drug addiction – New Haven Register

By Hearst Connecticut Media Editorial Board

Its easy to come up with arguments against a plan to distribute drug paraphernalia on the streets of one of Connecticuts largest cities, where drugs and crime have long plagued the life of residents. Using illegal drugs is supposed to be discouraged, so why would anyone in a position of authority do anything to make it easier?

New Haven, though, last week announced that it has started distributing free plastic bags that contain items including clean needles, sterile glass pipes and information about local rehabilitation services to people who have been released from the citys detention facility. Its part of an initiative to use harm reduction principles to curb addiction and a turn away from what are considered the failed policies of the long-running War on Drugs.

For now, part of the plan is on hold. The States Attorneys Office says the glass pipes in the packets could pose complications to future legal cases involving drug paraphernalia, and the city will wait for a clarification of state law before going ahead with that aspect. But the reasoning behind the plan is sound, and its one other communities should explore.

The focus of this program is harm reduction, New Haven Police Chief Otoniel Reyes said this week. As a department that traditionally has been on the side of enforcing and the accountability side of drug use, we recognize that our efforts have had very little, if no, impact in the reduction of people using drugs.

This is dispiriting to consider, but important. For all the millions of dollars spent on enforcement and thousands of people who have spent time behind bars, some serving extraordinarily long sentences, the tactics that police have used to fight drugs over recent decades have had little to no impact in reducing the numbers of addicts.

The harm reduction that New Haven seeks to encourage includes meeting people where they are, and creating opportunity for people that are on a destructive path, to hopefully give them a chance to find a way out, Reyes said. It doesnt mean law enforcement stands down, but it does mean that a rethink of proper strategies is necessary. New Haven is smart to lead the movement.

City and health officials have compared the distribution of glass pipes to needle exchange programs, which have been in effect for decades and have helped cut the spread of communicable diseases. A change in state law in the 1990s removed syringes from a statute defining drug paraphernalia, and the same should happen for glass pipes like those in the harm reduction kits.

The prevailing wisdom for too long in this country has been to treat drug addiction as a moral failing rather than as a health care issue. The result is a waste of police resources, thousands of people locked up for years on end and a lack of improvement in the states addiction statistics. It only makes sense to reconsider how we go about this fight.

The result, if other communities adopt similar policies, could be not just a drop in overdoses and spread of disease, but the decline in addiction rates that was supposed to be the goal all along.

Continued here:

Editorial: A better way to take on drug addiction - New Haven Register

How the police war on drugs is different from the public’s – Police News

In 1971, President Nixon declared a War on Drugs. I became a participant as a police officer on January 1, 1974.

I fought the good fight for 33 years, but looking back at the countless drug searches, seizures and arrests, I dont know if we have ever waged a war on drugs, but drugs are definitely waging war on us.

In 2017 alone, 70,237 Americans died of drug-related overdoses. This eclipses, in one year, the 58,220 total American deaths during the entire Vietnam War. Drugs are waging war on us!

Some headway has been made recently as we are beginning to seeflat or declining drug overdosenumbers. Factors contributing to this positive development include:

Bravo! Keep up the good work!

I am observing, however, that some allies in our efforts seem to have become part of the problem instead of the solution. Here are a few questions I have for these allies.

To the people who believe police officers pursue a person because of their color rather than their criminality, I ask: What if you are wrong and police officers are truly motivated by a sincere desire to keep you and your children safe?

Believe it or not, the vast majority of police officers you paint with your wide brush pursue criminality, not color.

If you do not believe me, listen to the testimonies of people who have worked hard and succeeded in getting out of troubled areas describe what a challenge it was to survive in an environment dominated by drugs and gangs.

We will never solve the problem of illegal drugs and other criminality by giving criminals a pass while blaming the police and the courts for putting people in prison who have earned the price of admission by poisoning our children and committing many, many, many crimes.

To healthcare professionals, I ask: If drug addiction is a disease, why are you not clamoring for drug dealers to be quarantined indefinitely?

Medical experts have declared drug addiction to be a disease. Therefore, since the numbers bear out that this disease is more deadly than modern warfare, it follows that drug dealers, who are the carriers of this disease, should be quarantined from society immediately and indefinitely.

However, if you examine bonding and sentencing policies nationwide, you will see that painstaking efforts are made to release drug dealers quickly and often back into our communities after they are arrested and even after conviction. Signature bonds, ankle bracelets and urine tests dont prevent drug dealers from exposing young children to the potentially fatal disease of addiction.

To legislators, I ask: If drug addiction is a disease, why are there so few medical treatment centers available to treat an affliction that kills so many?

Police officers can attest to the fact that not only in the case of drug addicts but also the mentally ill, it is difficult to get a bed in a treatment facility for long-term treatment even when the afflicted are pleading for care. As it stands, the only treatment facility that makes room for them upon request by the police are jails. Legislators must provide for the construction of many more treatment facilities for addicts and the mentally ill.

Why in the midst of a drug abuse epidemic are you rushing to legalize marijuana?

It is puzzling that instead of comprehensively trying to solve a massive drug abuse problem we have in this nation, legislators opt instead to spend their time on efforts to legalize marijuana. These efforts continue unabated even as we have children and adults dying horrible deaths after vaping products containing THC.

Why do you continue to facilitate needle giveaway programs when they endanger communities?

This effort to facilitate addicts and keep them safe has clearly backfired and endangers the public. In many small towns and big cities, park and recreation employees carry around needle collection kits so that our children are not injured by discarded free needles while sliding off a slide or into second base.

To prosecutors, judges and mayors, I ask: Why are some of you choosing to serve as advocates to lawbreakers rather than your constituents?

Keeping a community safe within the law should be the goal of everyone in service to their community. Too many prosecutors, judges and mayors have become criminal advocates at the expense of the good citizens they serve. You have mayors of sanctuary cities ordering drug dealers and other criminals to not be turned over to federal authorities upon request, allowing the release of these criminals, which enables them to commit more crimes. With that in mind, here is one more serious question: Where does a law-abiding citizen find sanctuary in a sanctuary city?

Finally, here is a question for everyone to ponder: How can we help children make the right choice when that moment comes?

Experts say Just say no doesnt work. However, the moment comes in every childs life, when it is their turn to decide to either use illegal drugs or just say no!

Preparing kids for that moment is our best chance of keeping them from the sinister grip of drugs. We must discuss and decide how we can redouble our efforts through education, personal example, enforcement, treatment and other options not yet thought of, to convince every child that when their moment to decide comes its not, Just say no, it's, Must say no!

Pondering these questions reminded me of a long-ago shift when I had someone before me who could have given me some insight into solving this problem. As I looked down upon the young overdose victim looking back at me like a discarded mannequin wearing that eyes-wide-open stare, I asked, How could this have been prevented?

Sadly the question was asked too late for the answer was...silence.

View original post here:

How the police war on drugs is different from the public's - Police News

More Than A Trip: Psychedelic Drugs Being Used To Help People Quit Smoking In Just One Dose – CBS Baltimore

BALTIMORE (WJZ) When most people think of psychedelic drugs, they think of hippies in the sixties tripping on LSD or magic mushrooms. But at Johns Hopkins, fascinating research is being done using hallucinogens as medicine and the results are promising, particularly when using psilocybin to treat addiction.

Davi Peterson was a very heavy smoker for over 25 years. After years of struggling to quit, she volunteered for a study at Johns Hopkins Behavioral Biology Research Center using the hallucinogen psilocybin.

Davi Peterson

I tried everything and I was starting to think that I would never be able to stop, so I went for it, Peterson said.

So after some pre-counseling, Peterson got her first dose of psilocybin.

Psilocybin is a naturally occurring psychedelic compound found in more than 200 species of mushrooms. It and other hallucinogenic drugs target the brains serotonin 2A receptors.

It kind of sets off a cascade of activity in the brain thats very different than whats happening when were normal and awake, said Albert Garcia-Romeu, PhD.

For Peterson, the effect was immediate and lasted over five hours.

It started very quickly kinda like being launched out of a space shuttle or something hurling through space, she said. It was very dramatic and very quick.

Time and space changes completely, Peterson continued. [It was] one of the most intense experiences of my life and it probably always will be.

READ MORE:

A lot of time theyre describing something that can be both overwhelming, but also positive and potentially life-changing, Garcia-Romeu added.

In the fifties and sixties, much research was done with hallucinogenic drugs, studying their effects on the brain and behavior. But that all came to a halt, when in 1971, President Richard Nixon launched whats become known as the war on drugs.

But in 2000, restrictions on testing were lifted and now Johns Hopkins leads the world in research into the possible physical and mental benefits of psychedelic drugs such as psilocybin.

If you look at the two images below on the left is a brain without the drug and on the right, is a brain on psilocybin.

Simplified illustration of the connections tracked while receiving the placebo (a) and the psilocybin (b). Image credit: Petri et al., 2014.

Theres far more connectivity on the right that may allow for a brief period of plasticity or a period in which the brain can change the way its connected. In other words, it can interrupt old patterns, well-worn neuro pathways, or habits.

People will often come out of these sessions describing changes in their way of thinking, their way of relating to the people around them, said Garcia-Romeu.

Hallucinogenics were a part of the social fabric of the turbulent sixties, but this study is not about recreational drug use its controlled and scientific.

WJZ was not allowed to show you a real session, so Denise Koch went through a mock session with a researcher. Heres what happens: you take a psilocybin pill and lie on a couch. Theres music and the researcher will give you eyeshades, headphones and a blanket, while you go through the five- to six-hour trip.

They will make sure participants know they are safe, sometimes holding their hand or sitting with them, to help them move through the difficult experience.

Since Hopkins started its research, 700 people have gone through the process.

A pilot study saw that 80% of participants quit smoking after one dose of psilocybin and research on 51 cancer patients showed the drug decreased anxiety and depression in 80% of those tested.

They do challenge us to reexamine our preconceptions about the way the world works and what, really is our place in the world, Garcia-Romeu said.

Right now, the Behavioral Biology Center is recruiting for studies using psilocybin in people with early stages of Alzheimers, anorexia-nervosa or major depression.

If youre interested in participating, click hereto go to Hopkins website. Click the Research tab to apply.

Read this article:

More Than A Trip: Psychedelic Drugs Being Used To Help People Quit Smoking In Just One Dose - CBS Baltimore

Philippines’ Duterte tells US he is scrapping troop agreement – The Guardian

Rodrigo Duterte, the president of the Philippines, has given formal notice to the US of his decision to scrap a bilateral agreement covering visiting American troops, following through on repeated threats to downgrade the defence alliance.

The visiting forces agreement (VFA), signed in 1998, accords legal status to thousands of American troops rotated in the country for humanitarian assistance and military exercises, dozens of which take place annually.

Duterte, who has made no secret of his grudge with the US and his disdain for his countrys close military relationship, believed it was time to be more militarily independent, his spokesman said.

Its about time we rely on ourselves. We will strengthen our own defences and not rely on any other country, Salvador Panelo told a regular briefing, quoting Duterte.

Defence ties between the Philippines and its former colonial ruler go back to the early 1950s and are governed by a mutual defence treaty (MTD), which remains intact, along with an enhanced defence cooperation agreement made under the Obama administration.

Duterte made the decision after the top commander of his war on drugs, the former police chief Ronald dela Rosa, said his US visa had been rescinded over an issue related to the detention of a senator and critic of Duterte.

It is the first time Duterte has scrapped an agreement with the US, having throughout his more than three years in office denounced Washington for hypocrisy and for treating the Philippines like a dog on a leash.

Despite reassurances from his generals, Duterte has long accused US forces of conducting clandestine activities. In a speech on Monday he said US nuclear weapons were being stored in his country.

He has argued that the presence of US forces makes the Philippines a potential target for aggression.

Dutertes move follows a Senate hearing last week during which his defence and foreign ministers spoke in favour of the VFA, both noting its overall benefits.

He said even the US president wanted him to change his mind. Trump, and others are trying to save the [VFA]. I said I dont want, he said.

His foreign secretary, Teodoro Locsin, confirmed on Twitter that the US embassy in Manila had received notice. The termination will take effect after 180 days.

Duterte favours warmer ties with China and Russia than the US and has praised those countries and increased their military contributions and donations, which are dwarfed by the $1.3bn (1bn) spent provided by the US since 1998.

Read more:

Philippines' Duterte tells US he is scrapping troop agreement - The Guardian

Help the Mendocino Cannabis Alliance get an Equity Grant This Saturday by Telling Your Prohibition Story – Redheaded Blackbelt

Press release from the Mendocino Cannabis Alliance:

[Stock photo by Kym Kemp]

MCA is currently working with the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors to support the countys application for a state-funded Equity Grant. We invite ALL Mendocino County cannabis community members (permitted or not) to come and share their stories of suffering brought about by the War on Drugs and cannabis prohibition to aid in this effort.

MCA DECLARATION WRITING DAY

11AM 4PM on Saturday February 15th, 2020

475 S. Oak St., Ukiah, CA

We will help you tell your story.

Community members should be ready to answer questions like:

How did the War on Drugs hurt you?

Were you or someone close to you raided? Busted? Affected by the overflights?

Did you lose land, product, assets?

Has it kept you from going legal or keeping you in the legal market?

Did the lack of banking, access to loans or drop in prices affect your ability to go forward?

Could you use an Equity Grant to help you get through the hoops?

Guided by Attorney Hannah Nelson.

The Mendocino Cannabis Alliance serves and promotes Mendocino Countys world-renowned cannabis cultivators and businesses through sustainable economic development, education and public policy initiatives.

If you would like more information on this event, please email info@mendocannabis.com

See the original post here:

Help the Mendocino Cannabis Alliance get an Equity Grant This Saturday by Telling Your Prohibition Story - Redheaded Blackbelt

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Wants to Legalize Drugs (As in All Drugs) – The National Interest Online

The New Hampshire primary on Tuesday will prove a make or break moment for Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. After having collected no popular support from the questionable Iowa caucus results, the congresswoman is relying on what has been a consistent 4-5% base of support in the Granite State.

Gabbard, whose key platform issue is an overhaul of the U.S. foreign policy establishment and opposition to regime change wars, has also staked herself out as the most progressive 2020 Democratic candidate when it comes to drug legalization.

When asked by a New Hampshire voter what she would about the unjust War on Drugs, Gabbard agreed with the voters suggestion to legalize and regulate narcotics. To justify that position, Gabbard mentioned the country of Portugal, which legalized all drugs in 2001.

I think that when you look at the statistics that come out of countries like Portugal that have taken that extreme stepthe fears, and the myths, and the stigma around taking that stuff should be set aside, she said. Because ultimately what you see is there are fewer and fewer people who are unnecessarily being incarcerated, and there are more people who need help who are actually getting the help that they need.

For Gabbard, drug policy is a question of personal autonomy and free choice. When it really comes right down to it, thats what this issue is about. Its about choice, she elaborated at the town hall. And each of us as individuals living with and dealing with the consequences of those choices whether they be on our own personal health or impacting us in other ways. However, Gabbard does not believe one of the consequences of drug use should be time in prison or a permanent criminal record.

The candidate further clarified that she was not advocating drug use, or that her views on personal liberty were reflective of her own decisions. For me, Ive never done drugs, and I wont. Thats my choice, she said.

This position, first announced publicly only three weeks ago, is a jump from Gabbards previous policies. Up until January, the congresswoman had promised to legalize marijuana at the federal level (having already introduced a bipartisan bill in the House), end the War on Drugs, and implement criminal justice reform. Her policy positions on her campaign website have not been altered to reflect her recent statements.

New Hampshire has so far only legalized marijuana for medical use, making it more restrictive than all three of its neighboring states and far from the policy Gabbard is prescribing. No matter what the primary results are, Tulsi Gabbard has pledged to take her campaign to the floor of the Democratic convention.

Hunter DeRensis is senior reporter at the National Interest. Follow him on Twitter @HunterDeRensis.

See original here:

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Wants to Legalize Drugs (As in All Drugs) - The National Interest Online

Drugs – why is the ‘Just say no’ campaign failing? – Malaysiakini

COMMENT| I attended an anti-drug campaign during high school. We were reminded again and again: Dont ever do drugs or your life will be ruined! There was a big screen in the hall. You could hear a pin drop when they first played the video. It was about a man who was flogged 24 times for committing a crime.

For many of us, it was the first time we saw the naked buttocks of a grownup man. Pieces of flesh were ripped from his body. Definitely not for the faint-hearted. But did the scare tactic work?

When the video ended, some of my schoolmates were traumatised. But some found it amusing and they cheered and clapped their hands. Despite the intended effect, our school wasnt drug-free that year.

The National Anti-Drug Agency (AADK) often brings different types of drugs to exhibit them in schools. The purpose? To show students how harmful drugs can be.

Last year, the director-general of the AADK told the media that two million students were at risk of drug use. Urine-testing was done in schools as an early preventive step to stop students from using drugs.

I am not saying we should turn a blind eye to children who use drugs. But the main reasons why kids use drugs are curiosity, broken families, trauma from abuse, mental illnesses, stress, boredom and peer pressure. Will random drug tests and harsh punitive action prevent all these?

True story on random urine testing - When I was in Form 4, nine of my friends smoked rokok daun in the school bus. The next day, the AADK did a urine test in our school. All of them were found positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and jailed for weeks. After their release, the headmaster caned all of them publicly.

Some boys were suspended, some expelled. The majority ended up living a problematic life. But the one that did not attend school that fateful day was able to escape and now is a doctor.

This story reminds me of Barack Obama and Bill Clinton who had admitted to drug use in their younger days. Would they have been US presidents if they had been caught?

The Dangerous Drugs Act, which criminalises drug use, was enacted in 1952 when addiction was considered a security threat and not a medical condition. The law does not differentiate people who use drugs experimentally, recreationally, for self-medication or chronic use. Instead, it only provides a "one-size-fits-all" solution.

The punishment is either a fine, jail sentence or both. In any case, the criminal records will be a hurdle for pursuing higher education and deters future proper employment.

"Ahmad" scored 7As for his SPM. His father and sister were both in prison for minor drug offences. Feeling lonely and depressed, he mingled with the wrong crowd and became addicted to drugs. Does the war on drugs break the cycle of addiction or has it broken Ahmads family, making him vulnerable to drug addiction?

Addiction is defined as a chronic, relapsing disorder characterised by compulsive drug-seeking. Negative emotions, such as sadness, grief and shame, if left unaddressed, will create tremendous potential for relapse. Without evidence-based treatment and interventions, it is highly unlikely "Ahmad" will break the cycle of addiction in prison.

I met "Rahul" and his family in a children's court when I was a rookie in the legal system. "Rahul" was this mischievous boy who frequently appeared in courts for drug use and other petty crimes.

Please send him to prison, I dont know how to deal with him anymore, said Rahuls father. What he didnt understand was that prison is not the solution. You might even expect "Rahul" to learn something and end his addiction while in prison.

But the unpopular truth is that prison officers are not trained to handle drug addiction. Furthermore, overcrowding in prison can fan the spread of diseases.

Research conducted revealed a high prevalence of latent tuberculosis among prisoners (88.8 percent) and prison staff (81 percent) at the Kajang Prison. Instead of getting the needful intervention, "Rahul" was exposed to infectious diseases and other hardcore criminals.

The last time we met, Rahul was in the High Court, facing a drug trafficking charge.

Most drug education programmes are aimed solely at preventing drug use. After instructions to abstain, the lesson ends. Abstinence is treated as the sole measure of success. Although the abstinence-only mandate is well-intended, this approach is clearly not enough.

It is unrealistic to believe that, at a time in their lives when they are most prone to risk-taking, teenagers will completely refrain from trying alcohol and/or other drugs.

If we really want to minimise drug problems among young people, we need a "fall back" strategy that includes comprehensive education and puts the safety, welfare and future of our children at the forefront.

Drug prevention programmes should focus on enhancing the decision-making ability for a healthier lifestyle while providing active social support.

Perhaps it is wise to look at the Iceland drug prevention model, which was designed around the idea of giving youngsters better things to do. Technology and a high-level of social media use have changed the way children interact with others. What worked before might not work now, and definitely won't always work.

With the influx of information on how drugs can be delivered from door-to-door, it is high time for Malaysia to embrace a comprehensive drug policy that is evidence-based and encompasses prevention, supply reduction, treatment and harm reduction while working closely with the affected communities.

SAMANTHA CHONG is a former deputy public prosecutor and drug policy reform advocate.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.

Excerpt from:

Drugs - why is the 'Just say no' campaign failing? - Malaysiakini

What happened to the ‘War on Drugs’? | Other Commentary – Journal Inquirer

Americas War on Drugs is over.

Unfortunately, for our society, the drugs won.

Since its inception, America has been suffering defeats. Filling up prisons with drug offenders and giving stiff sentences, penalties, and fines havent discouraged people from using drugs. Our efforts to stop drugs from entering the country have failed. And illegal substances across the board are more potent than ever.

Though the above illustrates how the battle has been lost, the most powerful display of drugs dominance over our society is the implementation of harm-reduction methods. This ideology accepts that we have lost and utilizes different practices to make the use of narcotics less harmful.

Its Americas white flag, and as we wave it, we see things occurring in our society that would have never been considered during the early stages of the war. Safe injections areas with free needles for IV drug users, decriminalization of illicit drugs, and opioid replacement drugs are components of this effort.

There is a noticeable shift in what these new practices are trying to achieve. Things have changed from trying to prevent drug use to avoiding the consequences of drug use. As our society becomes more interested in stopping the spread of disease and preventing overdose deaths, it is ignoring the core issue: substance abuse.

After fighting a losing battle for so long, something needs to be done to mitigate the fallout of Americas failed War on Drugs.

The biggest problem I see is that harm-reduction might be seen as the only option we have.

As our society moves further away from tackling the main issue, the concessions we make may lead to more significant implications in the future. As harm-reduction becomes more popular it may make it impossible to stop substance abuse from being an accepted way of life. Im afraid thats what we are doing by making it safer and more comfortable for people to be a drug addict.

The existence of practices like this undermines the drug addiction prevention education we have been trying to get our children to utilize from a young age.

Im not against stopping the spread of disease and preventing death but arent we sending the wrong message. We have been telling people that drugs are harmful and to Just say no. It appears that we are shifting to: Just say no. But if you do say yes, we have clean needles and a place to hang out while you inject your body with poison.

It just doesnt have the same ring to it.

The War on Drugs may be over, but we need to find other ways to help those afflicted with addiction. Making drug-use less harmful doesnt help people get off drugs; it does quite the opposite.

As we look to the future, I suggest we create policies and initiatives that focus on drug education and prevention and stay away from methods that undermine it.

Things are bad, but if the evolution of drug use over the past couple of decades has shown us anything, its that things can get worse. Maybe its time we reconsidered how helpful harm-reduction really is.

Marcel Gemme has been helping people struggling with substance abuse for over 20 years. His website is Addicted.org.

Read the original:

What happened to the 'War on Drugs'? | Other Commentary - Journal Inquirer

Rethinking Indonesia’s ‘War on Drugs’ – The Diplomat

ASEAN Beat|Society|Southeast Asia

Can the Global Commission on Drug Policys advocacy help change Jakartas harsh drug laws?

On January 29, the Global Commission on Drug Policy (GCDP), one of the worlds leading bodies advocating for global drug policy reform, will be co-hosting a seminar called Sustainable Development in Indonesia: What Can Be Learned From Global Best Practice in Drug Control? in Jakarta. The purpose of this forum is to open dialogue with government officials, business executives, and civil society members as to potential modes of progressing todays drug policy in Indonesia. The discussion could not be more prescient.

Formed in 2011, the GCDP has advocated for drug policies based on scientific evidence, human rights, public health, and safety, for all segments of the population. The GCDP consists of Commissioners from around the world, including both former heads of states and influential figures from the private sector, with their Secretariat based in Geneva, Switzerland. The current chair of the GCDP is Ruth Dreifuss, the former president of Switzerland (1999) and an instrumental policymaker behind remedying the Swiss drug problem at the end of the 20th century. Other members of the Commission have included Geoff Gallop (former premier of Western Australia, 2001-2006), Jos Ramos-Horta (former prime minister and president of Timor-Leste (2006-2007; 2007-2012), Csar Gaviria (former president of Colombia, 1990-1994), business magnate Richard Branson, and the late Kofi Annan, among others.

The members who are traveling with the GCDP to Jakarta will be speaking on a host of issues, all curated around implanting change to the modern drug policy in Indonesia. Currently, all narcotics are prohibited in Indonesia. The criminalization of drugs has led to compulsory rehabilitation in detention, corporal punishment, forced urine testing, and mandatory registration as means of administrative punishment for those arrested for drug-related offenses.

After beginning his first term as president in 2014, Joko Jokowi Widodo announced the resumption of executions of convicts sentenced to the death penalty, an act that had been subject to a moratorium since 2008 under President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. The lifting of this moratorium is extremely pertinent to the war on drugs as in Indonesia narcotic-related offenses can also lead to death row. It has happened numerous times over the years, perhaps most famously with the Bali Nine, two of whom have been executed under Jokowis administration. Since Jokowi took office, 18 drug offenders have been executed.

With the recent legalization of medical marijuana in 2019 by fellow ASEAN member Thailand, there is some hope for Indonesias drug laws to change in the not-too-distant future. Furthermore, policy changes in Malaysia highlight that Southeast Asia, a region once synonymous with draconian drug laws, has progressed. However, there are still countries in the region that show regression and use aggressive force against those involved with narcotics. The most troubling case of an intensifying war on drugs is Rodrigo Dutertes Philippines, which has caused death and destruction at unprecedented levels. Some human rights activists claim the war on drugs has seen over 27,000 civilians killed in the past few years.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

It is still uncertain what the panelists will discuss in Jakarta; however, if past reports are any indication, expect advocacy for the abolition of the death penalty, ending penalties for drug possession for personal use and cultivation of drugs for personal consumption, and implementing alternatives to punishment for low-level, nonviolent actors in the drug trade. All of these recommendations would be a change of course, if heeded by Jokowi and his current administration.

The Global Commission on Drug Policys seminar on Sustainable Development in Indonesia: What Can Be Learned From Global Best Practice in Drug Control? will take place on January 29. LBH Masyarakat and the School of Law Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia are co-sponsoring the discussion. The event is open to the public.

Will Doran conducts independent research and analysis regarding the war on drugs and drug policy reform in Southeast Asia. Currently, he is assisting with research at LBH Masyarakat in Jakarta. He is a graduate of the SOAS, University of London.

Excerpt from:

Rethinking Indonesia's 'War on Drugs' - The Diplomat

A Brief Global History of the War on Weed – The Daily Beast

This piece originally appeared in The MIT Press Reader

I want a Goddamn strong statement on marijuana I mean one on marijuana that just tears the ass out of them. By God we are going to hit the marijuana thing, and I want to hit it right square in the puss. I want to hit it, against legalizing and all that sort of thing.

Richard Nixon, 37th president of the United States

Before the war on drugs put marijuana farmers firmly in its crosshairs, cannabis was being grown openly and with commercial success on every continent on earth, much as it had been for centuries.

This ancient and extensive history of cannabis farming has given rise to the idea that prohibitions put in place in the mid-20th century were the first of their kinda whirlwind of racial, political, and economic forces that successfully used marijuana prohibition as a pretext for suppression. By contrasting prohibition with our ancient history of cannabis farming, some historians make our modern-day drug laws appear irregular and shortsighted. In his seminal (and controversial) book on cannabis,The Emperor Wears NoClothes(referred to by many legalization advocates as the Hemp Bible), Jack Herer opens with the following line:

For thousands upon thousands of years, all over the world, whole families came together to harvest the hemp fields at the height of the flowering season, never dreaming that one day the U.S. government would be spearheading an international movement to wipe the cannabis plant off the face of the earth.

Yet, while unprecedented in scope, the United States war on drugs was not the first of its kind. The reality is that marijuana has been controversial for almost as long as humans have been farming it. Many societies throughout history have banned cannabis cultivation and use. What many of these crackdowns and prohibitions have in common is social and economic inequality, or a distrust of the unknown. When members of a minority or lower class embrace marijuana use, the ruling class moves to outlaw marijuana as a form of suppression and control. Marijuana is perceived to be a threat to the order of society, and stamping it out naturally begins with a prohibition on cultivation.

As a case in point, the ancient Chinese might have been the first cannabis farmersand, as far as we know, were the first to write about psychoactive marijuanaand yet they may also have been the first to reject it as a socially acceptable drug. The rise of Taoism around 600 BCE brought with it a cultural rejection of intoxicants. Marijuana was then viewed as antisocial, and derisively dismissed by one Taoist priest as a loony drug reserved for shamans.The sentiment persisted into the modern erato this day, marijuana struggles to disassociate itself with the stained history of opium in China.

Muslim societies have a complex relationship history with marijuana. Hashish use spread widely with the expansion of Islam in the seventh century CE, and remains popular today. Early Arabic texts referred to marijuana as the bush of understanding and the morsel of thought.Yet traditional theologians believed Mohammed prohibited marijuana use (the Koran [2: 219] prohibits intoxicants, but how that word should be interpreted is still up for debate). One prominent theologian associated marijuana with the dreaded Mongol empire, and many upper-class Muslims pushed for prohibition, for fear that marijuana use would disrupt the labor force. In the end, some societies tolerated marijuana use or turned a blind eye; others (such as Damascus in 1265) embraced prohibition.

Sufi Muslims took these tensions to the next level. The mystical Sufis believed that spiritual enlightenment could be reached by an altered state ofconsciousness, and a mind-bending drug like marijuana would seem a logical vehicle to reach that state. Sufis believed hashish was a vehicle not only to personal enlightenment but to direct communication with Allah. These beliefs did not go over well with the rest of mainstream Islam, however. To make matters worse for the Sufis, they were often lower-class laborers. That marijuana use was therefore central to a religion perceived to be a heretical challenge to religious, economic, and political order made the plant an easy target for authorities.

In 1253, Sufis were openly growing marijuana in Cairo, Egypt. The government, claiming that Sufism was a threat to society, raided their farms and destroyed all their crops. Undeterred, the Sufis made deals with farmers in the Nile River Valley to grow marijuana on their farmlands. This successful agricultural partnership lasted until 1324, when Egyptian troops raided the countryside and destroyed all the marijuana they could find. For Sufis and marijuana farmers, the situation only got worse. Martial law was imposed in 1378, and this time the authorities destroyed more than marijuana crops: entire farms and farming villages were burned to the ground. Farmers were imprisoned or executed, and hashish users had their teeth pulled.Despite this swift and vicious crackdown, the demand for hashish remained strong. The cycle of cultivation, consumption, and crackdown continued in Egypt for centuries.

Marijuana was then viewed as antisocial, and derisively dismissed by one Taoist priest as a loony drug reserved for shamans.

Islam was not the only major world religion to feel threatened by marijuana. Pope Innocent VIII issued a papal ban on cannabis in the first year of his papacy, in 1484. At the time, marijuana, along with other mind-altering plants, was being cultivated for medicinal and spiritual applications throughout Europe by pagans who were considered to be witches and sorcerers. The Christianity of Pope Innocent VIII, however, was predicated on a future fulfillment in the afterlife, and a rejection of momentary pleasures or enlightenment. The pagans growing marijuana profoundly challenged this premise by promising spiritual enrichment in the present, with a plant grown right here on earth. Pope Innocent VIII thus wasted no time in addressing this existential threat, declaring cannabis to be an unholy sacrament of the satanic Mass. The pagans who cultivated it were persecuted into imprisonment, exile, or death.

Colonial empires, with their unfailing concern for a robust military and hard-working labor force, have often viewed marijuana with suspicion. Though the Spanish were one of the first colonial empires to encourage thecultivation of hemp in the Americas, they were not as enthusiastic about marijuana. The Spanish governor of Mexico issued an order in 1550 limiting cannabis farming because the natives were beginning to use the plant for something other than rope, write Robert Clarke and Mark Merlin in their book Cannabis: Evolution and Ethnobotany. White South Africans, descended from Dutch or British colonialists, passed a series of laws in the 19th century designed to crack down on the cultivation and use of marijuana by indentured Indian farm workers, who were viewed by whites as societal contaminants and a threat to civil order.

The Portuguese empire also struggled to control cannabis. The Portuguese wanted to foster a strong hemp-producing workforce just like those of their colonial rivals, but they considered marijuana a pernicious vice, especially when used by slaves. The Portuguese introduced marijuana prohibitions to many of their African colonies, including Zambia and Angola. Nonetheless, explorers to the region noticed marijuana being grown nearly everywhere and used by all the tribes of the interior, according to a report published by the Transnational Institute.

One reason Portugal may have been lenient on marijuana farming in Brazil is the fact that the Queen of Portugal herself was using it while stationed there during the Napoleonic wars.

When the Portuguese brought slaves to Brazil in the 16th century, the slaves brought marijuana along with them, as seeds were sewn into the clothing they wore onto the slave ships and then germinated upon arrival. Whatever strains they were using must have been well adapted to the Brazilian landscape; marijuana was soon growing from the coasts to the Amazon and everywhere in between.For the most part, marijuana cultivation was permitted during Portuguese rule. But when Brazil gained its independence in the early 19th century, Rio de Janeiros municipal cannabis prohibition started a chain reaction of prohibitions around the country aimed at curbing marijuana use among slave populations.

One reason Portugal may have been lenient on marijuana farming in Brazil is the fact that the Queen of Portugal herself was using it while stationed there during the Napoleonic wars.This wasnt the first time Napoleon Bonaparte was involved in the history of marijuana. Several years earlier, in 1798, Napoleon had launched the French campaign into Egypt and Syria, a large-scale offensive designed to cut off British trade and liberate Egypt from Ottoman rule. After the initial conquest, Napoleon attempted to maintain local support by embracing Islamic culture and scientific exchange. An unusually large percentage of French forces in Egypt (totaling around 40,000) were scientists and scholars, and were responsible for establishing libraries, laboratories, and research centers that went on to make significant contributions in a number of disciplines.

The discovery of hashish may not have been seen as a breakthrough at the time, but it had a great effect on European culture and literary thought. Prior to the French campaign in Egypt, hashish wasnt well known in Europe and certainly wasnt commonly used. The 40,000 French troops stationed in Egypt, however, quickly learned about it. Hashish was ubiquitous in Egypt at the time, bought and sold in cafs, markets, and smoking lounges. Lacking access to their customary French wines and liquors and encouraged by Napoleon to embrace Egyptian culture, many French troops took up hashish.

Unfortunately, hashish was still associated with Sufi mystics and looked down upon by the Sunni elite. After Napoleon went back to France, the general he had left in charge of Egypt, General Jacques-Franois Menou, was a noble-born French revolutionary who married into an upper-class Sunni family after taking command of Egypt. For Menou, the prospect of a hashish ban killed two birds with one stone: It would appease the Sunni elite by cracking down on Sufis, and alleviate a perceived public health problem among the French troops. Theordre du jourbanning the cultivation, sale, and consumption of cannabis, considered by some scholars to be the first drug prohibition law in the modern era, came down in 1800. It opens with the following:

Article One: The use of strong liquor, made by certain Muslims with a certain grass [herbe] called hashish, and smoking of the seed of cannabis, are prohibited throughout Egypt. Those who are accustomed to drinking this liquor and smoking this seed lose reason and fall into a violent delirium, which often leads them to commit excesses of all kinds.

Whether or not Menous order was the first modern penal law on drugs, it largely failed to work (a fact that should come as no surprise to us in the 21st century). Hashish continued to be produced, sold, and consumed widely throughout Egypt, and it came home with French troops when they left Egypt in 1801. It wasnt long before hashish was being widely used in France and the rest of western Europe.

They become ravished by ecstasy, and delivered from all worries and cares, and laugh at the least little thing.

Despite efforts by authorities in Europe to paint hashish as an unstable and dangerous substance,many of the Romantic periods most accomplished artists and writers were brought together because of cannabis. Dubbing themselvesLe Club des Hachichins(Hashish-Eaters Club), luminaries such as Thophile Gautier, Charles Baudelaire, Grard de Nerval, Victor Hugo, Honor de Balzac, and Alexandre Dumas would meet in Paris to take hashish and exchange notes on their experiences.They rejected mainstream attempts to associate hashish with what was regarded as Orientalbarbarism and, through their writings, normalized marijuana use and popularized the Romantic eras bohemian creed:lart pour lart(art for arts sake).

Across the Channel, the British Empire wrestled with the conspicuous presence of cannabis in India. As a native plant to the Indian subcontinent, cannabis could be found growing in the wild by hunter-gatherers, and was likely cultivated by the earliest agrarian settlers. Psychoactive marijuana strains featured prominently in early texts of the Hindu, Buddhist, and Tantrist religions. As the Indian marijuana farming industry matured over time, the harvested product was divided into three gradients, all of which remain available today.

Bhangis the cheapest, most prevalent, and lowest-quality marijuana; it consists of crushed leaves, seeds, and/or flowers, and produces the least potent high. On the other end of the spectrum,Charasis the highest-quality and most expensive marijuana in India. It is sold as a highly potent hashish produced from plants grown in the most desirable cannabis-producing farmlands of the Hindu Kush and Himalaya mountain ranges between 4,000 to 7,000 feet. It remains one of the most revered marijuana products in the world today. Somewhere in betweenBhangandCharasisGanga. A mid-grade crop in both price and potency,Gangais cultivated from well-cared-for female plants, and consists of a mixture of resin and cannabis flower.

One of the first Europeans to write about the Indian marijuana industry was a Portuguese doctor named Garcia da Orta. He wrote ofBhangin 1563:

The Indians get no usefulness from this, unless it is in the fact that they become ravished by ecstasy, and delivered from all worries and cares, and laugh at the least little thing. After all, it is said that it was they who first found the use of it.

The commission found (as its predecessors did) that marijuana cultivation is nearly impossible to eradicate, and argued that it produces no evil results in the first place.

Some 200 years later, the British mulled over the possibility of a marijuana prohibition in India. The Indian ruling class and the British governor-general of India pushed for a total ban, fearful that marijuana would create social unrest. The British Parliament, however, had other ideas. Short on cash, the government saw the marijuana industry as an opportunity to raise some revenue. They taxed cannabis in 1790, and three years later, established a regulatory framework to issue licenses to farmers and sellers.

The tax-and-regulate scheme worked to some extent. But in a vast landscape where cannabis grows in the wild, many farmers and their crops escaped the tax. The British encouraged the regulatory system to decentralize, allowing cities and states to experiment with different taxation schemes. Theresults were mixed. The strength of the black market was frustrating enough that the British Parliament considered prohibition measures in 1838, 1871, 1877, and 1892.But ultimately the measures failed to pass, because the tax revenues that did come in couldnt be ignored.

Temperance movement advocates persisted, however, driven by the evils of opium use which they associated with cannabis. Parliament responded by commissioning the most comprehensive government study of marijuana in human history. The seven-volume 3,500-pageReport of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commissionof 1894 to 1895 called over a thousand witnesses from around the world. The findings emphatically rejected the alleged grounds for prohibition. The commission found (as its predecessors did) that marijuana cultivation is nearly impossible to eradicate, and argued that it produces no evil results in the first place:

Total prohibition of the cultivation of the hemp plant for narcotics, and of the manufacture, sale, or use of the drugs derived from it, is neither necessary nor expedient in consideration of their ascertained effects, of the prevalence of the habit of using them, of the social and religious feeling on the subject, and of the possibility of its driving the consumers to have recourse to other stimulants or narcotics which may be more deleterious.

The commission went on to recommend a tax-and-license scheme for the marijuana farming industry:

The means to be adopted for the attainment of [control and restriction] are:

This may represent the first time in history a government study has recommended a centralized marijuana farming scheme. Comprehensive as it is in other respects, however, the commissions report does not elaborate on this centralization proposal; it merely suggests that the most effective way of limiting supply is to grant licenses for cultivation in such a way as to secure supervision and registration of the produce.

Despite the commissions efforts, Parliaments endorsement of its report was lukewarm. As a result, the marijuana farming trade continued unchanged, with taxation and licensing of cultivators continuing to be hit and miss.Bhangwas informally grown nearly everywhere;Gangacrops were, for the most part, produced on government-licensed farms; andCharaswas importedfrom the Hindu Kush and Himalayas.This basic structure persisted into the global prohibition era of the 20th century. The proposal to centralize cultivation was largely forgotten after the commissions report was published. But a century later, government regulators trying to find their way through the post-prohibition era of the 21st century would come to recognize its advantages.

The history of marijuana farming tells us that when prohibitions are imposed, they almost always come from the ruling class. Marijuanas role as a spiritual, medicinal, or recreational drug of the poor working classes stokes fears among the elite that the political, religious, or economic order that has served them so well may be disrupted. There arent, therefore, many cases where marijuana was embraced by the ruling class and persecuted from below. But the story of the Bashilange tribe suggests that marijuana users can be targeted from any angle.

In the mid-19th century, the eastern region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in central Africa was a vast wilderness, and it was controlled by the Bashilange tribe. The Bashilange were ruthless fighters, eating the bodies of their victims and enslaving their prisoners. They enacted few laws, save a requirement that other tribes in the region pay tribute to their supremacy or face a certain death. While exploring these lands, however, the Governor of German East Africa observed a remarkable shift in the Bashilanges culture. The tribe had discovered marijuana, and rapidly embraced the plant as a pillar of their tribes identity.

Tribesmen of the Bashilange dubbed themselves the Sons of Cannabis, and soon passed laws to promote peace and friendship. They rejected cannibalism and were no longer permitted to carry weapons in the village. They stopped killing their rivals, and started having more sex. Marijuana was smoked regularly and at most important events, including religious ceremonies, holidays, and political alliances. Formerly known for being cold-blooded killers, the Sons of Cannabis became tranquil marijuana-growing peacemakers.

Unfortunately, their rivals did not share the Sons of Cannabiss newfound love of peace and friendship. Many tribes lost respect for their former rulers and stopped making tribute payments. With weakening support in the region, the Bashilange tribe splintered. The Sons of Cannabis, no longer the fearsome fighters of yore, were overthrown by their fellow tribesmen who yearned for a return to the tribes dominant past. The new regime reinstitutedthe tribes violent practices, and largely returned the Bashilange to its former warring nature.

Jack Herer may have been using hyperbole when he claimed that cannabis farmers throughout history could not have conceived of the 20th centurys crackdown on marijuana. The historical record illustrates that while many regions of the world have tolerated or embraced marijuana farming in the past, plenty of others have seen authorities attempt to exterminate farmers and their crops. Targeting the first step in the supply chain is a logical starting point for prohibitionists, and marijuanas role as an agent of religious, political, or economic change has long made it a threat to the established social order.

Our marijuana-farming ancestors of the past could have told us, based on experience, that when prohibitionists come after cannabis, they will do so in predictable ways. They will use rhetoric to associate the plant with violence, depravity, and other more dangerous drugs, as the European temperance movement did in France and Great Britain. They will use a militarized show of force to eradicate crops, persecute farmers, and dissuade the next generation from growing marijuana, as the Ottomans did in Egypt. They will portray marijuana users as religious extremists or dangerous minorities, as Pope Innocent VIII did in Europe, Sunni Muslims did in the Middle East, or white South Africans did in South Africa. The best-case scenario, they might say, is that the authorities will turn a blind eye to the unstoppable forces of supply and demand, much as the Portuguese did in Brazil or the British did in India.

In telling us this, our marijuana-farming ancestors might as well have been writing the playbook for the 20th-century war on drugs. The cannabis prohibition era in the United States did not invent this greatest hits collection of tactics that prohibitionists have been using for centuries; it simply brought them all together in one place, and injected them with more financial and military resources than any prohibition movement in history has ever seen.

Ryan Stoa is an associate professor of law at the Concordia University School of Law and the author of Craft Weed, from which this article is adapted.

Link:

A Brief Global History of the War on Weed - The Daily Beast