Category Archives: War On Drugs

"Dozens of young White House staffers have been suspended, asked to resign or placed in a remote work program," The Daily Beast reports, "due to past marijuana use."

Or, rather, due to having truthfully disclosed that marijuana use when applying for their jobs. It's a felony to lie on forms like the Office of Personnel Management's "Questionnaire for National Security Positions," which asks "In the last seven (7) years, have you illegally used any drugs or controlled substances?" Presumably some applicants decided to risk the felony rap rather than out themselves. They're apparently the smart ones.

I'm not prone to pity for government employees who find themselves kicked out of Uncle Sugar's paycheck mill and into the productive sector, but the sheer idiocy of this move doesn't augur well for drug policy in general.

If you believed that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were really going to take a different approach to the "war on drugs," and voted for them on that basis, you got conned. And you should have known better.

When it comes to marijuana in particular, every winning presidential candidate since Bill Clinton has pulled the old "Lucy tells Charlie Brown to kick the football then pulls it away" routine.

Barack Obama and Donald Trump might have fooled you, but they were elected president as, more or less, political novices, without records of actual governance to compare their campaign rhetoric to.

Biden and Harris, on the other hand, have both spent their decades in political office gleefully doing their damnedest to put users of substances they disapprove of behind bars Biden in the Senate and Harris as both a prosecutor and US Senator. Their supposed slight changes of heart on the presidential campaign trail were simple opportunism, and transparently so to anyone knew their records.

If America in general ran on the White House policy we're seeing here, U.S. unemployment would stand at (at least) 52%. That's the percentage of adults who admitted to having used marijuana at some point (and 44% of those claimed to still use it) in a 2017 Marist/Yahoo News poll.

Fortunately, America in general is way ahead of the federal government, and the Biden/Harris administration in particular, on marijuana.

Medical marijuana is legal in 39 states and DC (five more have legal CBD), while 15 states and DC have legalized recreational use (although South Dakota's governor is pushing malicious litigation to overturn the will of the voters on the subject).

The war on marijuana may not be over, but marijuana is clearly going to win it. The only question is how many more victims Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will have abducted and put in cages (or killed) before America recovers from its chronic case of reefer madness.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.

Read more:

Biden, Harris showing their true colors with their long-standing war on 'drugs' - Southgate News Herald

A probe of deaths linked to the Duterte administrations war on drugs showed a strong indication of intent to kill on the part of the authorities, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) said Thursday.

CHR spokesperson Atty. Jacqueline de Guia said investigations led by Commissioner Gwendolyn Pimentel-Gana had covered 451 of 3,295 killings since 2016.

She said 1,912 of these were a result of police operations and 1,382 were committed by unidentified assailants.

More than half or 55% of the cases examined so far took place in Metro Manila, Southern Tagalog, and Cebu.

In our initial findings, we have deduced that because of the presence of the multiple gunshot wounds on the body of the victims as well as the location of those wounds [that] were at the fatal parts of the body, then such has a strong indication of intent to kill, De Guia told GMA News Online.

The CHR is set to come out with its report in a month. The probe includes field investigations, interviews with surviving kin of victims and witnesses, forensic examinations, and available documents.

The independent body previously said its ongoing investigations showed the brutality of the anti-drug campaign and indicated possible abuse of strength by perpetrators.

Philippine National Police spokesman Police Brigadier General Ildebrandi Usana denied that there was a policy encouraging cops to commit violence or extrajudicial way of exercising their functions during the operations."

Low indication of 'nanlaban'

Of the 400 plus cases investigated, CHR probers also discovered that there was a huge number of lawmen in anti-drug operations, putting the victim at a "disadvantageous position."

This supposedly belied police claims that the victims "fought back [nanlaban].

"We initially found out that there is a low indication of 'nanlaban' claim because there is a presence of superiors there. Meaning to say, because of the number of operatives in each operation conducted, such would put the victim at a gross disadvantage and will be unable to fight back," said De Guia, adding that part of their report also looked into reports of police that suspects resisted arrest or fired back using a weapon.

De Guia also found that common narratives in police operations include serving search warrants and barging at the house of victims while victims were sleeping.

Based on a February report by the inter-agency task force created to review the killings, many of the weapons of drug suspects who died in police operations were not examined.

Police claimed that suspects fought back but there were no ballistic examination or paraffin tests on the cases, Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Menardo Guevarra said.

First step to signaling accountability

Saying that the CHR's study complements the task forces drug war review, De Guia hoped that their deeper coordination with the justice department would make sure accountability on the drug war deaths.

"We are trying to deepen our engagement with each other. That is signalled by signing a data sharing agreement with DOJ. Whereby, we hope this would signal the first of many steps into ensuring accountability with regards to the killings happening in regards of the war on drugs," De Guia said.

De Guia, meanwhile, sought the Philippine police's "openness" in the investigation. She also called on the Philippine government to have a "strong commitment" to end the drug-related killings.

Last month, the CHR said the justice department's findings on the irregularities of the drug war was a "step in the right direction."

It also said that it would coordinate with the DOJ to look into the drug-related killings.

This came after the nation's rights body lamented that the DOJ excluded CHR from its inter-agency review of drug war deaths, which reevaluated police anti-drug operations. -NB, GMA News

See the original post here:

CHR finds strong indication of intent to kill in Dutertes war on drugs - GMA News

0:08 CA Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional to detain people who cannot afford bail

Mano Raju (@ManoRajuPD) is the San Francisco Public Defender.

Raj Jayadev is coordinator of Silicon Valley De-Bug, a community organizing, advocacy, and a multimedia storytelling organization based out of San Jos.

0:34 How will Oakland spend its stimulus funding?

Zac Unger is president of the Oakland Firefighters union, IAFF Local 55.

Chris Jackson is an organizer with the Refund Coalition and the Oakland Progressive Alliance.

0:53 Oakland teachers oppose re-opening, so some schools move re-open date to mid-April

Noni Galloway is a parent and organizer with Parent Voices Oakland.

1:08 Author interview: Johann Hari (@johannhari101) is a writer and journalist. His TED talk, Everything You Know About Addiction is Wrong, and the animation based on it have more than 20 million views. Hes the author of Lost Connections: Uncovering the Real Causes of Depression and the Unexpected Solutions, and Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs which is the basis of this interview, with our host Brian Edwards Tiekert in 2015.

See the original post here:

CA Supreme Court issues historic ruling its unconstitutional to detain people who cannot afford bail; Plus: How will Oakland spend its federal...

The chief of a Saskatchewan First Nation says they have no choice but to establish their own police force to fight the war on drugs.

Poundmaker Cree Nation Chief Duane Antoine said the decision was made after he said they were informed by the Cut Knife RCMP that it didnt have the authority to enforce a band council resolution (BCR).

The RCMP have a duty to protect our people and they are not doing their job, so we need to take matters into our own hands to fight the drug problem, Antoine said in a statement.

The band council declared a state of emergency to shore up its efforts in dealing with the ongoing drug situation on its reserve.

Story continues below advertisement

We are taking a unified approach and zero-tolerance policy to fight drug abuse and trafficking by kicking out band members and non-band members through a band council resolution in order to protect our community, Antoine said.

He added that they have tried to work with Cut Knife RCMP to enforce the band council resolution, but to no avail.

We have to hold the federal government accountable since these BCRs have no weight for enforcement, Antoine said.

The government needs to listen and work with us, and we will do whatever it takes to have our own police force.

Antoine did not say how long it will take to establish their own force, but he said it is needed to protect the community, especially our children and elders who are suffering from this exposure to the drug scene.

He is also calling on other First Nations to declare a state of emergency and to discuss solutions in fighting the drug epidemic in their communities.

Poundmaker Cree Nation is roughly 200 kilometres northwest of Saskatoon.

Related News

2021 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

Follow this link:

Poundmaker Cree Nation declares state of emergency to fight the war on drugs - Global News

Firms and labour markets in times of violence: Evidence from the Mexican Drug War

For the last 13 years, Mexico has been home to a violent conflict known as the Mexican Drug War (Zedillo 2016). Warring factions of criminal organisations fight for control of territories and lucrative drug trafficking routes through Mexico to the US. These groups often use ostentatious killings and heavy weapons, and increasingly target the general public through kidnappings for ransom, collateral killings, and apparently random acts of violence.

The violence is on such a scale that the Mexican Drug War ranks ahead of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as one of the most violent conflicts of the 21st century. To date, it has claimed more than 330,000 lives and over 50,000 missing persons.

While the gruesome substance of the conflict has been amply covered in the media, along with its context of organised crime, attention to the firm-level economic consequences of the conflict has been surprisingly sanguine.

Coverage has mainly centred around the understanding that international trade of goods with Mexico has not been substantially affected by the violence and that large international firms continue operations in Mexico undeterred (The Economist 2010). But large, internationally trading companies are not the whole economy, and in a recent paper I take a deep look at the effect that the drug war has on the Mexican manufacturing economy overall (Utar 2020).

The two policy triggers of the Drug War provide the necessary exogenous variation across Mexican cities and over time to establish a causal link between violence and firm-level outcomes:

The resulting violence did not affect cities equally (Figure 1). My study shows that within these cities violence does not affect firms and their workers equally either.

Figure 1 The rise in violence due to the Drug War is very different across cities.

Note: The number of homicide occurrences and population information are from the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI). Populations in the figure legend are the year 2010 numbers. Homicide rates are calculated using annual population figures and are annualized monthly rates of homicides.

The consequences of the conflict on the manufacturing sector are, in fact, dire. Manufacturing firms, on average, experience a significant reduction in capacity utilisation, employment, output, and productivity. The results also reveal strongly heterogonous outcomes both within firms with different types of employees and across firms with different characteristics.

To get a clearer picture, it is necessary to map out the mechanisms of how the violence acts on the economy. The results tell an interesting and compelling story.

Figure 2 Firm-level employment and wage response to violence

Note: The figure shows the estimates of the firm-level elasticities of blue- and white-collar employment (left) and wages (right) with respect to the metropolitan area leveldrug violence. Solid bar frames indicate statistical significance of the magnitudes. See Utar (2020) for details.

Manufacturing employment responds negatively to rising violence in a metropolitan area. But when focusing on different types of jobs within firms, results show stable and almost increasing white-collar employment and, in sharp contrast, a substantial decline in blue-collar jobs. The left panel of Figure 2 shows how firm-level employment responds to increased violence in the metropolitan area where a firm is located, depending on the type of employment.

Violence may induce a lower labour demand, either because of lower output demand or lower worker productivity. But the right panel of Figure 2 shows lower labour demand cannot be the only driver of employment decline. It also shows that wages move in the opposite direction: violence increases blue-collar wages and decreases white collar-wages. This pattern of employment and wage response signifies a violence-induced labour supply change.

It appears from these within-firm changes that the violence of the drug war deters blue-collar workers from working more than it deters white-collar workers. This suggests Drug War violence creates a negative labour supply shock by disproportionately taking the lowest wage workers (who are likely to live in poorer neighborhoods, most afflicted by violence) out of the labour force.

Figure 3 How employment responds to violence depends on the type of workforce

Note: Firm-level employment responses to violence depending on wage level (top) and female workforce intensity (bottom). Solid bar frames indicate statistical significance of the magnitudes. See Utar (2020) for details.

Although blue-collar production workers are among the occupations most exposed to violence, the blue-collar labour supply does not decrease due to a direct decimation of the labour force by death or emigration of workers to safer locations. Rather, the strongly heterogeneous impact of the violence across firms (Figure 3) indicates that the drug war affects blue-collar workers labour market decisions, especially those of lower-paid female workers. The figure below shows that the employment reduction in response to the local violence is much stronger in firms with lower wages and a female-intensive workforce.

These results show that firms are affected obliquely through the labour market in an interesting mechanism opposite to most other economic shocks (that hit the firms first and, by consequence, the labour market). In the case of the violence shock, results suggest that it is the other way around: the violence deters workers from working and increases the reservation wage, below which the risk of working outweighs the benefit.

When focusing on plant-level output, results show that output reductions resulting from local violence are also strongest in plants with a low-wage female workforce, confirming the heterogeneous labour market response channel. But the starkest contrast in output response is between plants operating in the local market versus exporting, importing, and geographically diversified plants.

I find that firms export revenues are not disproportionately affected by the increased violence due to the Drug War, and neither is their probability of exporting.

Figure 4 shows the plant-level output response to the metropolitan area level of violence, depending on whether plants were exporting, importing, or geographically diversified before the shock.

The figure shows that the negative output effect of the war is mostly borne on non-diversified, smaller, local firms. This makes sense; violence is a local shock, so it affects the most local firms more.

And in a reverse confirmation of the media reporting, it is the small- and mid-size, domestically trading manufacturers that are hit hard by the violence. As it is the seed and growth layer of the economy that is suppressed by the biased attrition of the violence. This effect will likely mark the Mexican economy for a long time, even once the drug war is put to an end.

Figure 4 Heterogeneous output response to violence

Note: In this figure, each bar height shows the estimate of the output elasticity with respect to drug war violence among plants with specific characteristics. Solid bar frames indicate statistical significance. See Utar (2020) for details.

In all likelihood, the understanding of the economic effects of violence derived from studying the Mexican Drug War is more broadly applicable. Many cities in developing countries suffer from violence, and drug trafficking often plays a central role. The results in Utar (2020) illustrate how labour market developments affect firms, and point to important distributional and inequality consequences of violence. As the disproportionate impact of the Mexican Drug War was borne on plants that tend to be less productive, the aggregate output implications may be limited. But, at the same time, firms start small and local, and the most productive ones grow bigger and become international. By affecting those plants that have the potential to become big and diversified, organised crime-related violence is an important obstacle in the development of domestic industrial capability.

Dell, M (2015), Trafficking Networks and the Mexican Drug War, American Economic Review 105(6): 1738-1779.

Castillo, J C, D Mejia and P Restrepo (2020), Scarcity without Leviathan: The Violent Effects of Cocaine Supply Shortages in the Mexican Drug War, The Review of Economics and Statistics 102(2): 269-286.

Utar, H (2020), Firms and Labor in Times of Violence: Evidence from the Mexican Drug War, CESIfo Working paper 7345.

The Economist (2010), Signs of life; Trade with Mexico, 26 June.

Zedillo, E (2016), Re-thinking the war on drugs: Insights from the US and Mexico, VoxEU.org, 22 April.

Excerpt from:

Firms and labour markets in times of violence | VOX, CEPR Policy Portal - voxeu.org

The Fluresh Accelerator collaborates with community partners, educators, and governmental agencies to create an end-to-end curriculum that will develop the next leaders in the industry. This curriculum includes focus areas such as state and local licensure, entrepreneurship, finance, cultivation and processing, retail operations, environmental sustainability, marketing and more, all aimed to give participants the arsenal to grow their own cannabis businesses upon completion of the program.

"The Fluresh team is proud to launch this unique program in the state of Michigan, whose market is experiencing incredibly rapid growth," says Tom Benson, Chief Executive Officer of Fluresh. "We're excited to be a part of this trajectory, due in part to the dedication of our nearly 200 employees operating across facilities in Grand Rapids and Adrian. That said, with this growth, comes a responsibility to the communities we operate in, and a need to take what we're learning and share it with those that wish to join our company in this competitive field."

The cannabis job market is booming, with recent reports showing that Michigan state cannabis industry jobs are growing faster than any other state with legal marijuana.[1] While this growth is exhilarating, educational opportunities and exposure to the multitude of business opportunities in, or ancillary to, cannabis are limited. Fluresh is making an investment in dynamic programming and social equity advocacy to help everyone 'Fluresh together' and conduct business in a way that better suits the communities it serves. The Fluresh Accelerator is one of these important investments.

"As licensed operators in the cannabis industry, we should be brave enough to acknowledge the history of cannabis in the country and those communities that were targeted and disproportionately affected by the War on Drugs," says Denavvia Mojet, Corporate Impact Strategist & Legal Compliance Manager at Fluresh. "To combat these inequities, cannabis companies need to lead by example and work to drive a new industry that is diverse and invested in social equity and justice. The Fluresh Accelerator serves that exact purpose."

Fluresh opened applications for the incubator program in December 2020, with eligibility open to any individual who is a legal resident of Michigan and 21 years of age or older as of January 1, 2021. Among other considerations, the company strongly considered applications that aligned with Fluresh's goal to make the cannabis industry more diverse and equitable for victims of the War on Drugs, the industry appeal, potential of business services or products, history within the cannabis industry and/or general professional experience, as well as the potential impact the applicant and its visions can have on the industry.

After careful evaluation, the inaugural 2021 class of the Fluresh Accelerator program was selected to include a diverse group of entrepreneurs, community leaders, legal professionals, caregivers, and creators, all bound by a common interest of growing their profiles within the Michigan cannabis community. More than 80 percent of the selected participants are BIPOC. The selected participants for this mentorship program are as follows:

"To be part of a mentorship program that focuses on social equity, and working with individuals seeking opportunities in the cannabis business makes me excited about the future of my business in the cannabis industry," says Fluresh Accelerator participant, Jessica Austin, owner of Creative Carvings. "With the enthusiasm of the Fluresh team and their eagerness to teach and work with us, I absolutely cannot wait to learn, thrive, and grow alongside my fellow participants."

Throughout the year, these participants will engage in the comprehensive and evolving curriculum outlined by the Fluresh team and led by industry experts and community partners. The first session took place on Feb. 26, 2021, as an introduction to the Fluresh team and an overarching orientation of what to expect throughout the program's curriculum, where the participants first met each other to kick off their journey together in the accelerator.

Upcoming sessions will continue through fall 2021. For more information about Fluresh and its Fluresh Accelerator program, please visit http://www.fluresh.com/community-impact.

About Fluresh

Fluresh is a modern cannabis company dedicated to designing premium cannabis products for the diversity of life. As your partner in cannabis, Fluresh creates thoughtfully curated and expertly cultivated cannabis products tailored to support each patient and recreational customer's dynamic needs. A licensed grower of high-quality cannabis, Fluresh is headquartered out of Grand Rapids, Mich., with its state-of-the-art grow facility and flagship retail location, as well as a second facility with integrated operations based in Adrian. To learn more about Fluresh, visitFluresh.com.

MEDIA CONTACT: Austin McClelland(e): [emailprotected](ph): 630.624.2380

[1]Leafly Jobs Report 2021

SOURCE Fluresh

Home

See the original post:

Fluresh Invests In Next Generation Of Cannabis Industry With The Launch Of The 'Fluresh Accelerator' Program - PRNewswire

Tarahrick Terry first began arguing for a reduced sentence in 2019. Eleven years prior, Terry pleaded guilty to possessing 3.9 grams of crack cocaine and was sentenced to 188 months imprisonment. During Terrys time incarcerated, two key pieces of legislation have been passed: The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 and the First Step Act of 2018.

The 2010 law raised the amounts of crack cocaine that triggered various tiers of criminal penalties. The First Step Act made the 2010 law retroactive once district courts were given the ability to lessen sentences of those with a covered offense committed before August 3, 2010. But despite Donald Trumps having signed the First Step Act, the Trump administration maintained that Terrys low-level offense fell outside the acts coverage.

Not including certain low-level crack offenses under the statue carried on the racist disparities of the crack era. Sentences for crack were more severe than they were for powder cocaine, because crack was associated with stereotypes depicting Black folks as violent drug offenders. People selling crack, as well as those who suffered from addiction, were uniquely berated by politicians and the press.

Crack was vilified by policymakers, explained Maritza Perez, the director of the Drug Policy Alliances National Affairs office. And it was politically popular to throw people who use drugs, specifically crack offenders, under the bus for cheap political wins.

In September, Terry petitioned the Supreme Court saying he qualified for a sentence reduction, because the First Step Act made 2010s Fair Sentencing Act retroactive. His case got a boost earlier this week, when President Bidens Justice Department informed the Supreme Court they believe that Terry, and others who were incarcerated for low-level crack cocaine offenses, should have their sentences reduced under the First Step Act. The court plans to hear the case later this year.

In an interview with Slate, Perez spoke about the racist roots of the sentencing disparity, whether sentence reduction is enough, and if Bidens reversal is an attempt to remedy his station as the architect of mass incarcerationeven if it is a step in the right direction.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

How would you explain the crack-cocaine sentencing disparity to people who may not be familiar with it, or the push to get low-level drug offenders released?

This policy came to be during the tough-on-crime era when politicians sought to make the drug war the scapegoat for a lot of social problems. They found that it was a really politically popular thing to do. That led to a series of bills that built the system of mass incarceration that we know today. Part of that effort was the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which created a disparity between people who were convicted of cocaine offenses versus people who were convicted of crack offenses. That disparity was a 100:1. (Note: The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 reduced this disparity down to 18:1)

So, it was a hundred times more harsh for people who were convicted of crack offenses. And the individuals who were typically convicted of crack offenses were people of colorbut mostly Black people.

Crack was vilified by policymakers. And it was politically popular to throw people who use drugs, specifically crack offenders, under the bus for cheap political wins. The drug was super sensationalized in the media, even though, chemically, crack and cocaine have the same effects on the body. The only difference was that crack use was associated with Black Americans, whereas cocaine use was associated with white Americans. Thats just a stereotype. White people actually use crack and cocaine more than Black people do.

Its becoming more well known what crack did to Black communities and what it is still doing. But what are the effects of mass incarceration on Black and Brown communities?

There are a lot of issues with our prisons, but the primary effect is that its taking people away from their families, their friends, and any systems of support they may have. And that actually leads to less public safety. So it doesnt even make sense from a public safety standpoint.

When people are released from jail or prison, their sentence really isnt over in many ways. There are about 50,000 collateral consequences attached to incarceration across the country. They range from barring people from public housing and public health benefitsthings like SNAP and TANF. People can have their children taken away, be denied jobs or education because of their conviction. If youre not an American citizen, you might even be exposed to deportation or losing your status. And this isnt just people who have served time in jail or prison. This could also be the effects for somebody whos just had contact with the criminal justice system, like an arrest, because there is a record of that that follows an individual around.

The effects of that on communities of color has been deeply profound. Its led to less public safety. Its led to family separation. Its led to poverty and a host of mental health issuesand general health issues. Losing somebody to incarceration is very traumatic. Living in poverty is also very traumatic. So it has a tremendous impact.

Absolutely. If people who have been incarcerated for low-level crack cocaine offenses are able to get their sentences reduced, is that a step in the right direction? And, if it is, how so?

It would definitely be a step in the right direction. I want to point out that there are many individuals who are still languishing behind bars because of this sentencing disparity, and that would benefit tremendously. If this law became the law of the land tomorrow, they could go home and that would be huge. Were talking about people who have served decades of time.

Another significant thing that would come from it is it would be one of the first times that I can recall the government actually acknowledging wrongdoing and trying to fix it. But if something like this were to pass, that would be an example of where the government acknowledged that this disparity was racist, anti-science, and had an unjust impact on communities of color, specifically Black communities. That within itself would be significant and, hopefully, it would lead to bolder change around sentencing and criminal justice reform.

Could this be perceived as an attempt by Biden to remedy his past involvement with the 1994 crime bill?

I do think its part of Bidens plan to account for the harm that hes done in the past. Biden was one of the architects of mass incarceration in this country. Earlier, when I was talking about the tough on crime era, Biden could be considered a leader of that movement. So I think he understands that he has to repair those harms. And this is definitely one way to do that.

Its also important to point out that Black and brown people delivered him to the White House. And this policy is one that specifically impacts those communities. Its a racial justice issue, aside from being a significant criminal justice issue. I think he definitely has taken all of that into account. But its also the right thing to do.

Is this enough or is it just an adequate first step?

Its an adequate first step, but its certainly not enough. Our sentencing laws are so outdated and draconian, especially when it comes to drug offenses. The federal system is rife with people serving very long sentences for drug activity. We know that people in this country are exposed to mandatory minimums every day for drug activity.

We have long said that drug activity should be treated through a public health lens, not through a criminal justice lens. And if we do take that approach, there are so many people and in jails and prisons across this country who should not be there.

What would maybe start to be enough is if clemency was provided for people who are serving long sentences for drug offenses; if we completely ended the use of mandatory minimums; if we provided reparations to communities of color that have been torn apart by the war on drugs; and if we decriminalized drug possession and drug activity. Those things would go a long way.

This is just a starta drop in the bucket of the work thats left to do.

Readers like you make our work possible. Help us continue to provide the reporting, commentary, and criticism you wont find anywhere else.

Go here to read the rest:

The Biden Administration Takes a Step Toward Undoing the Damage of the War on Drugs - Slate

Chemdawg marijuana plants grow at a facility in Smiths Falls, Ontario, Canada October 29, 2019. (Blair Gable/Reuters)

We all knew thered be consequences to Joe Biden picking Kamala Harris as his running mate, but who could have predicted the crackdown would begin so soon? According to Scott Bixby, Asawin Suebsaeng, and Adam Rawnsley over at the Daily Beast, a pot purge is underway at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. From their story:

Dozens of young White House staffers have been suspended, asked to resign, or placed in a remote work program due to past marijuana use, frustrating staffers who were pleased by initial indications from the Biden administration that recreational use of cannabis would not be immediately disqualifying for would-be personnel, according to three people familiar with the situation.

The policy has even affected staffers whose marijuana use was exclusive to one of the 14 statesand the District of Columbiawhere cannabis is legal. Sources familiar with the matter also said a number of young staffers were either put on probation or canned because they revealed past marijuana use in an official document they filled out as part of the lengthy background check for a position in the Biden White House.

In some cases, staffers were informally told by transition higher-ups ahead of formally joining the administration that they would likely overlook some past marijuana use, only to be asked later to resign.

There were one-on-one calls with individual affected staffersrather, ex-staffers, one former White House staffer affected by the policy told The Daily Beast. I was asked to resign.

Nothing was ever explained on the calls, they added, which were led by White House Director of Management and Administration Anne Filipic. The policies were never explained, the threshold for what was excusable and what was inexcusable was never explained.

Obviously, continued drug use should be incompatible with a White House job, but should any indication of prior use really necessitate this kind of response? Press Secretary Jen Psaki responded like this:

We announced a few weeks ago that the White House had worked with the security service to update the policies to ensure that past marijuana use wouldnt automatically disqualify staff from serving in the White House. As a result, more people will serve who would not have in the past with the same level of recent drug use. The bottom line is this: of the hundreds of people hired, only five people who had started working at the White House are no longer employed as a result of this policy.

You dont have to agree with the National Reviews editors to wonderwhy five people were asked to resign; or why many more were suspended and asked to work from home; or to see that Psakis statement doesnt answer these questions. The best question of all, though, is this: What distinguishes those punished for their past behavior from Vice President Harris, who boasted about her own experiences with marijuana on the campaign trail in 2019?

Continued here:

The New War-on-Drugs Target: White House Staffers - National Review

Growing up in America, we are taught from a very young age that drugs are bad. In our justice system, we label drug users as criminals. We are still in the midst of a War on Drugs that began in the 1970s. Americas anti-drug-use philosophy is simple teach the young that drugs are bad, vilify drug users and treat the drug abuse epidemic as a war of law abiders versus law breakers. But what has that accomplished?

In reality, all of these tactics employed by the American government have failed miserably. Drug overdose deaths have tripled since 1990, and drug arrests have more than tripled between 1980 and 2007. Interestingly enough, the majority of these arrests are for just possessing the drug, not attempting to manufacture or sell it possession arrests outnumber sale or manufacture arrests by a ratio of five to one. And lets not forget that these arrests disproportionately target minority communities.

The conclusion to draw here is that the War on Drugs and all of the subsequent anti-drug tactics America uses are not working. Funny enough, the solution to curbing drug addiction and overdoses has been right in front of us all along. America should simply decriminalize the possession and consumption of all illicit drugs.

Note, decriminalization is not the same thing as legalization heroin and meth stores wont be popping up left and right. Decriminalization means that those who get caught with illicit substances will not face criminal charges. Instead, the accused will go before some sort of commission or judge, who will assign them a penalty and/or relief services. Decriminalizing illegal substances may seem counterintuitive, but its quite an effective method to fix Americas drug problem.

Switzerland and Portugal have been plagued with rampant drug overdoses and abuse just as America has. But instead of opting for a punishment-focused War on Drugs, these countries went in the complete opposite direction and decriminalized all drugs. And it worked. Both Switzerland and Portugal saw extremely sharp reductions in drug overdoses after decriminalizing the possession and consumption of all illicit substances. This policy greatly outperforms Americas current policy of mass arrests and little-to-no treatment by erasing the stigma that drug users are criminals and emphasizing treatment, not punishment.

When you think of a heroin user, who do you picture? Without thinking, you probably picture someone like Bubbles or Johnny Weeks from The Wire. American institutions have conditioned us to believe that heroin or other drug users are these deadbeats who live in squalor and only care about getting high. Im sure that a small subset of drug users fit this description, but I contend that this is an inaccurate representation of the people who use drugs.

Before drug decriminalization in Portugal, drug users were commonly known as drogados junkies. Now, they are commonly referred to as people who use drugs or people with addiction disorders.

Besides ameliorating Americas perception of drug users, decriminalization will allow for them to get the treatment they need instead of being vilified and thrown in jail. In Portugal, those caught possessing a personal supply of drugs could be given a warning, a small fine or be told to appear before a local commission about treatment, harm reduction and the support services that are available to them.

Emphasizing support systems and treatment is far more effective at curbing drug abuse than punishment and arrests. Switzerland opened drug consumption rooms to give people safe sites to do drugs, supervised by medical professionals. These sites are clean, eliminating any chance that someone could get an infection from dirty needles or other dirty supplies. Medical professionals supervise these sites so they can offer support, help with moderation techniques if the patients want and greatly reduce the chance of someone overdosing.

Another effect these safe sites have is that it confines drug users to designated areas, so the number of people doing drugs openly in the streets is greatly reduced. A benefit that most people dont realize is that there will be fewer drug users in the streets. And with less people on the streets doing drugs, the police force can just focus on the people doing real harm in their communities the manufacturers and sellers.

Though illicit drug users will be off the streets, tobacco smokers still roam the streets with few restrictions. Believe it or not, tobacco and its legal friend alcohol are more dangerous than any illicit drugs. In fact, these two drugs are just as addictive as any illicit drug. I see no possible justification for maintaining Americas current drug policy.

Thankfully, measures are already being taken at the state level to correct our broken system. This past November, Oregonians agreed on a ballot measure to decriminalize possession amounts of all drugs. Now if you are charged with possession of drugs, you will not be arrested. Instead, you will be connected with a host of support services like treatment, recovery, harm reduction and even housing and/or job assistance.

All of this will be funded through Oregons excess cannabis tax revenue more than $45 million and savings from no longer arresting, incarcerating or prosecuting people for drug possession. This plan looks very good on paper, and should work seamlessly just like the similar models used in Switzerland and Portugal. I strongly encourage America to adopt this model on the federal level, with the first step being the federal legalization of cannabis.

While this is just an action by one state, this is cause for optimism. This new policy from Oregon is a very good start to a new, better America one that emphasizes relief and not punishment.

Ethan Tessler is a senior and writes about issues that dont seem to be at the forefront of media attention. If you enjoyed the column, hated it or have any other thoughts, write to him at [emailprotected].

Excerpt from:

Opinion | The United States should decriminalize all drugs - University of Pittsburgh The Pitt News

...and you can click here to watch Episode 1, "The War on Race," in its entirety.

"This piece is for all our citizens who are becoming more aware of the institutions and policies of our nation," Human Toll director cean Vashti Jude tells Muse. "We are living in a time where people are becoming more conscious. They want to pull back the veil, hear truths. This series will give it to them."

Experts discuss how the government, police and mass media used drug policy as a racial wedge, adopting the term "marijuana," as opposed to cannabis, "because it sounded foreign, it sounded scary, it sounded like something that bad people would use," John Hudak, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, says in the film.

Using such tactics, the establishment demonized cannabis users years before pot was banned in 1937. This set the stage for social unrest, tainting Mexican and African Americans, beatniks, hippies and others as intrinsically unsavory owing to their affinity for weed.

"When we get to the later war on drugs, we have this opportunity for the government to use as a substance as a cipher for an internal threat to American prosperity and democracy and social cohesion," Papillion says. This precipitated the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of drug offendersnotably Black and Hispanic menwho often served lengthy sentences for minor infractions and non-violent crimes, such as cannabis use and possession.

"I'm trying to have people connect with folks who are usually just statistics," Jude says. "A lot of people are in jail for something the general population uses. But if we shine a light on these issues and we introduce people who have experienced these unjust things, then we make it harder to turn a blind eye. When we know better, we do better."

Now, some viewers may find the presentation too breezy or one-sided. That's a fair criticism, but The Human Toll still ranks as effective advocacy journalism and timely branded content.

"This is not just something that happened in the rear view," says Laura Fogelman, senior director of communications and public affairs, PAX Labs. "There are more than 40,000 people incarcerated today for nonviolent, cannabis-related crimes, while our industry remains one of the fastest growing in America. It will take all of us coming together, demanding much-needed reforms, to see meaningful change."

The nextepisodes, "Collateral Consequences" and "Getting Out," launch on March 26.

The Human Toll and recent initiatives from Jay-Z's Monogram company and Problem and Wiz Khalifa, shine a light on persistent problems and spark hope for a more equitable future. PAX previously championed the cause in its Gold Clio Cannabis Award-winning film Dennis: The Man Who Legalized Cannabis.

CONDE NASTLloyd D'Souza - Head of Content DevelopmentNina Van Brunt - Creative DirectorJayne Roberts - Director of Unscripted DevelopmentJulia Ochsenreiter - Executive ProducerJulie Sullivan - Supervising ProducerAdam Peryer - Production ManagerThea Goddard - Associate ProducerTimothy Begley - Executive Director of SalesRobert Gearity - Executive Director of MarketingJessica Sisco - Director of Marketing

PAX LABSLaura Fogelman, Sr. Director, Communications & Public AffairsLauryn Livengood, Director, Brand MarketingMalia Madden, Communications SpecialistZoe Wilder, PR

CREWcean Vashti Jude - DirectorAndres Becerra - Director of Photography, PrincipalBrandy Bruce - Director of PhotographyGunsel Pehlivan - Director of PhotographyGiacobazzi Yanez - Director of PhotographyDominique Marro - Assistant Camera OperatorMiguel Zamora - Assistant Camera OperatorMatthew Barauskas - Assistant Camera OperatorMariya James - Covid Compliance OfficerVeronica Mammina - Covid Compliance OfficerKari Barber - Sound RecordistRussell Hamilton - EditorTyrone Rhabb - EditorBryce Aubrey - EditorDan Berlin - Assistant EditorJacqueline Nixon - GFX ArtistNicholas Lareau - ColoristMat Guido - Sound Mixer

FEATURING-Steve Hawkins, Executive Director, Marijuana Policy Project and Interim President & CEO, US Cannabis Coalition-Maj. Neill Franklin, Executive Director, Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP)-John Hudak, Senior Fellow & Deputy Director, Brookings Institution-Natalie Papillion, Director of Strategic Initiatives, Last Prisoner Project and Founder & Executive Director, The Equity Organization-Corvain Cooper, Constituent/Advisor, Last Prisoner Project & Brand Ambassador, 40Tons-Michael Thompson, Constituent, Last Prisoner Project-Evelyn LaChapelle, Program Associate, Last Prisoner Project, Heart of Cannabis Host, Vertosa, & Founder, Eighty Seven

Read more from the original source:

PAX Labs Explores the 'Human Toll' of America's War on Cannabis - Muse by Clio