Daily Archives: May 17, 2024

Today's guest isKat Murti, the new executive director ofStudents for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), the country's oldest and most influential student group challenging the war on drugs. Before taking the helm at SSDP, Kat was a longtime staffer at the libertarianCato Institute, a founder ofFeminists for Liberty, and an SSDP chapter head at the University of California, Berkeley, where she attended undergrad. Reason's Nick Gillespie talks with Murti about the role that young people in particular can play in ending prohibition, why marijuana has yet to be legalized at the federal level, and whether Donald Trump and Republicans or Joe Biden and Democrats are actually worse when it comes to drug policy reform.

This interview was taped live at an event cosponsored by The Psychedelic Assemblyin midtown Manhattan.

00:00:00Introduction

00:02:03What is Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP)?

00:05:59The Drug War is far from over

00:08:45Don't let politicians get away with empty legalization promises

00:10:45What's the best legalization model?

00:16:26How do we activate the youth vote?

00:19:10Harm reduction vs. prohibition

00:22:51Drug education and safety

00:26:33ALL of us are on drugs

00:27:17The Rat Park Experiment

00:29:30How to make safe injection sites Work

00:34:48SSDP & psychedelics

00:40:50Shifting attitudes toward drug legalization

00:46:45Kat Murti's career in drug policy

00:49:19How to pursue drug policy wins despite polarization

00:51:19Audience Q&A

View post:

Kat Murti: How To End the Drug War for Good - Reason

Hailed as a historic shiftin federal cannabis policy, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has submitted a formal recommendation to the White House to move the substance from Schedule Ito Schedule III. But despite overwhelming supportfor legal access to medicinal and recreational marijuana from voters across the political spectrum, advocates fear this reclassificationcould impede efforts to deschedule cannabis completely and end the war on drugs.

Pot-ential Policy Pros

Schedule III substances like anabolic steroids, ketamine, and acetaminophen-codeine combinations are federally illegal and subject to penalty under the Controlled Substances Act. Though it would remain illegal, rescheduling marijuana would allow physicians to prescribe it and state-authorized dispensaries to distribute it. Recreational marijuana and the use, sale, and distribution of medical marijuana without permission would also remain illegal under federal law.

But moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III acknowledges what the scientific community has known for years: that in addition to some accepted medical value, marijuana has less potential for abusecompared to its Schedule I counterparts (heroin, LSD, and MDMA). State-sanctioned dispensaries stand to benefit from a reduced federal tax burdenestimated at 70 percent or morewhich could potentially help small businessesand reduce competition from illicit suppliers. Rescheduling also opens up banking opportunitiesto lessen the threat of violence associated with cash-based operations and provides greater research opportunities, though restrictions still apply.

Weed Woes

Supported by lawmakerson both sides of the aisle, the recommendation to reschedule marijuana is considered one step closer to ending the failed war on drugs. But cannabis advocateswant the substance declassified entirely so it can be regulated like alcohol or tobacco. Despite potential benefits, the proposed rescheduling still pits federal law against lawsin Washington, D.C. and the 38 U.S. states with legal medical marijuana programs (as well as the 24 that have approved recreational marijuana). At any given time, the DEA can choose to prosecute people and businesses that comply with existing state regulations on recreational and medicinal marijuana products.

There is also concern that the DEA is ill-equipped to handle the roughly 15,000 cannabis dispensariesthat would have to register and follow strict reporting requirements under the rescheduling. Similarly, the lack of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of existing products is problematic. Traveling across state lines or via air with state-legalized cannabis could triggerfederal criminal penalties unless or until the FDA approves and regulates the industry. Since state-sanctioned cannabis products are currently outside the FDAs purview, they would not be rescheduled automatically; instead, they would remain illegal under federal law. Quantity-based mandatory minimum sentencing would not change under the proposed policy. The continued incongruity between federal and state law is problematicfor police and citizens alike and perpetuates the ongoing war on drugs. Critics also contend that rescheduling does not address the harms associated with five decades of marijuana prohibition.

One Small Step for Marijuana, One Giant Leap for Mankind

Marijuana must be descheduled to ensure that businesses, consumers, communities, and children are protected. This is not an endorsement of the substancerather, it is a practical solution to conflicting laws that currently restrict the proper regulation of cannabis products. Federal legislation that deschedules marijuana and includes standards of product testing and oversight, established age for consumption, packaging and quality control, and marketing restrictions increases product safety and reduces potential harms. Furthermore, complete descheduling has significant potentialto enhance public safety by improving police-citizen interaction to strengthen relationships and restore legitimacy; allow for the reallocation of system and financial government resources historically wasted on cannabis enforcement; and implement appropriate regulation to aid in disruptingillicit market activity.

Where Do We Go from Here?

Following Aprils confirmed proposal to reschedule cannabis, there is still much to do. It is unclear how long it will take for the rule to be finalized, and its potential impact on the criminal justice system and industry stakeholders remains uncertain. Even with specific rulemaking timeframes, litigation issues could delay implementationespecially where political pressure is involved. Moreover, depending on this years election results, we could see an attorney general who decides to keep cannabis a Schedule I controlled substance. For now, we must wait to see how cannabis rescheduling will progress.

Continued here:

Cannabis Rescheduling: Winning the Battle, but Not the War - R Street

The House Committee on Human Rights will investigate the deaths attributed to the war on drugs under the administration of former President Rodrigo Duterte, committee chairman Manila Rep. Bienvenido Abante said on Thursday.

Abante said a hearing on the matter has been set on May 22. Invited to the inquiry are relatives of the victims of the war on drugs, police officers, and former Cabinet officials.

Why are we conducting an inquiry into the deaths of alleged drug addicts or drug dealers? First, we must begin with the principle that each life is valuable and that each life lost is a profound tragedy, Abante said at a press conference.

Secondly, we must point out that those who lost their lives, like every Filipino, are protected by the rights granted by the Constitution, one of which is due process, Abante added.

GMA News Online has reached out to the camp of the former President for comment. It will

The nation, Abante said, owes the victims of drug war deaths justice.

They were not convicted, they were silenced. They were denied their rights. It is our responsibility to the victims and their families to seek the truth, Abante said.

Abante then said that his committee has the mandate tl diligently look into the accusations of human rights abuses amid the anti-drug war police operations.

Based on government records, around 6,200 drug suspects were killed during the Duterte administrations anti-drug police operations.

Human rights organizations, however, say that the number may reach 30,000 due to the unreported related slays.

Duterte is under International Criminal Court probe over the alleged crimes against humanity committed during his administration's anti-drug campaign.NB, GMA Integrated News

Read the original here:

House panel to probe killings in Duterte war on drugs - GMA News Online

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

This is contrary to a claim in a May 13, 2024 article in The Manila Times by columnist Rigoberto Tiglao

Claim: Former president Rodrigo Duterte is not named in the documents in the International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation into his administrations war on drugs.

Why we fact-checked this: The claim can be found in a May 13 article in The Manila Times by columnist Rigoberto Tiglao, titled Highly paid lawyer gathering dirt vs Duterte. The article alleged that lawyer Kristina Conti, who is also secretary-general of the National Union of Peoples Lawyers National Capital Region, was being paid to malign Duterte. (Conti, in a Facebook post, denied Tiglaos allegation.)

Tiglao claimed that former president Duterte was not named in the ICC investigation documents, writing: Conti and the Yellows have repeated in Hitlerian fashion that the ICC case is investigating the former president and [Senator Ronald] de la Rosa for these crimes. This is fake news. It is still an investigation of the Philippine situation, and there is no mention of Duterte in all of the ICCs documents on the case, which are labeled only as an investigation of the Situation in the Republic of the Philippines.'

The facts: Dutertes name has been mentioned in several ICC documents on the drug war case, which also state Situation in the Republic of the Philippines on the title page:

ICC investigation: In 2018, then-ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda opened a preliminary examination of the drug war killings. A full investigation was opened in 2021 and later temporarily suspended upon the Philippine governments request under Duterte. The probe resumed in July 2023. (TIMELINE: The International Criminal Court and Dutertes bloody war on drugs)

The ICC has not yet identified subjects or respondents, as this will only happen in a pre-trial stage, or the next stage after investigation. However, the prosecutors reports have named Duterte in the killings that appear to have been committed pursuant to an official State policy.

Under the Duterte administrations war on drugs, at least 6,252 individuals were killed in police operations, as recorded by the government, as of May 2022. Human rights groups, however, say the number is between 27,000 and 30,000 if people killed in vigilante-style executions are counted.

Previous related fact-checks: Rappler has previously fact-checked claims about Duterte and the ICC investigation.

Rappler has also fact-checked false claims by Tiglao in his columns:

Percival Bueser/ Rappler.com

Percival Bueser is a graduate of Rapplers fact-checking mentorship program. This fact check was reviewed by a member of Rapplers research team and a senior editor. Learn more about Rapplers fact-checking mentorship program here.

Keep us aware of suspicious Facebook pages, groups, accounts, websites, articles, or photos in your network by contacting us at factcheck@rappler.com. You may also report dubious claims to #FactsFirstPH tipline by messaging Rappler on Facebook or Newsbreak via Twitter direct message. You may also report through our Viber fact check chatbot. Let us battle disinformation one Fact Check at a time.

View original post here:

FACT CHECK: Duterte named in ICC documents on Philippine drug war case - Rappler