Marijuana.com

Lit_Match

Brief Comment on the Transfer of Power in Congress
11-10-06|Drug war chronicles

Drug War Chronicle has this week focused on the results of ballot measures and individual candidacies of relevance to drug policy reform. We will next week publish an in-depth analysis of the potential impact that the change of control of Congress from the Republicans to the Democrats could have on our issue, but in the meanwhile a few brief comments:

First, while DRCNet is a commitedly non-partisan organization that has had both good and bad -- mostly bad -- to say about both major parties' stances on drug policy, at the present moment in time our cause or at least some politically current corners of it, has more friends on the Democratic side of the aisle. Some of them are expected to take the chairmanships of key committees:

* Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) is the next likely chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. He replaces James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), one of the most extreme drug warriors in Congress. Click here to read about Conyers' appearance at our Perry Fund event in Washington last year.)

* Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), a committed criminal justice reform, is headed toward chairmanship of the subcommittee of Judiciary that deals with crime legislation.

* George Miller (D-CA) is the likely chair of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) of the Senate committee dealing with education, two of our best supporters in the effort to repeal the Higher Education Act drug provision -- we've gotten it part of the way already, it now may be a real possibility to get rid of it entirely.

* Pat Leahy (D-VT) is in line to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee, another of the best members of Congress on criminal justice issues. The current chairman, Arlen Specter (R-PA), is pretty decent on drug policy, better I would say than a lot of Democrats. But Leahy will probably do more for us, and Specter will still be there as the ranking minority member.

This is not to say that the Democratic Party is a reliable ally for us by any means. After all, the terrible mandatory minimums we are living with today were enacted 20 years ago by a Democratically-controlled Congress, on the initiative of Democratic leaders. Only a few months ago Democratic Senator Charles Schumer sponsored millions of dollars of funding for opium eradication in Afghanistan, in our opinion a big mistake and unjust to the farmers who have no other effective way of feeding their families.

Nevertheless, in our opinion we now have a much better fighting chance -- not yet for legalization, perhaps, but for much positive progress -- and less of a chance of seeing really bad bills go through. Sentencing reform, needle exchange, scaling back Plan Colombia funding, even medical marijuana -- could they happen? The answer is now a definite maybe.

The more our forces grow, the more of you, our readers, take action, the more clout the cause will have with both Democrats and Republicans. We are at a juncture of historic possibilities in the issue, and we hope we can count on your support and participation in the months and years to come.

 

xxdr_zombiexx

1: The GOP have reefer madness as a CORE PLANK of their political identity. Reefer Madness is like a religion to them. Maybe not to the local representative, but state-level and up, the GOP is firmly committed to spending any amount of money and trashing any part of the constitution in order to keep cannabis illegal and highly demonized - or totally blacked-out of - the "media".

2: The Democratic party lacks the foam-at-the-mouth fervor we see with the GOP. The Dems have been too willing and eager to be "GOP-lite" and have failed MISERABLY as an opposition party in general in the last13-14 years..AT LEAST. They have given the GOP almost everything they want in terms of the "war on Drugs".

Dems will cntinue to be the focus of my "activism" as they are not so completely committed to reefer madness. I don't think they need it or worship it: they just do what the GOP badgers and bullies them into.

With the current election results I am hoping this tide is changing -at least a teensy-weensy little bit.

Dems are fucking stupid to not wholly and enthusiastically embrace and spout reform language. If there is no other point to make, it is this one. The GOP is beyond stupid, diving insistently into reefer mad nonsense. Why systematically diss millions of sure votes?

The Dems listed above will be recieving communication from cannabis reforms between Jan 2007 and Election day 2008.

Have a good rest over the holiday season and in Jan we will re-focus and wage total war against the reefer mad. Our children will sing great songs about us.

__________________
Alien Space Signal

There's no money for your issue so long as we're squandering $50 billion a year on the DrugWar. Ben Masel

Fear became the ultimate tool of this government - V.

xxdr_zombiexx

Please check out the commentary -if any - at the following postings:

Smirking Chimp | Daily Kos

I expect a few derogatory comments at Kos because so many Dems still have their heads in a dark place when it comes to what WE know and can discuss til the cows come home.

This is where cannabis activists need to be appearing and doing their best.

Please check it out.

Hansje

Move it forward on the continuum. Medical marijuana defense law to permit medical necessity defense in court. I was just skimming MPP articles on the 2006 election just held, and in all the various cannabis initiatives in Nevada, South Dakota, California, and Colorado there is at least 40% support. You can't lock up 40% of the people engage in or condone the use of cannabis. The rest need consistent repetition of the differentiation between use and abuse to pull some more over to the legalization side. Eliminate the lock the University of Mississippi has on growing cannabis in the U.S. Other institutions should be allowed to cultivate it.n I would recommend a law that gives the FDA the ability to override the DEA to grant permission to cultivate in the U.S. That's a harmless enough start. I realize that it doesn't address the recreational use issue. That will have to be addressed at the benchmark when a clear majority number of Americans know the difference between use and abuse and have been brought over to our side of this tug of war. Thing is not to drag them through the mud. These various institutions that grow for research and to be seedbanks to supply medical marijuana providers with seeds from an FDA licensed provider.

The DEA is simply going to have to focus on the powders, rocks, and tablets in other areas of their purview. If you don't want any layoffs, I would suggest to the DEA that they draft a plan to use their resources to check up on and control licensed recreational cannabis outlets to make sure that no one in there is also selling hard drugs or prescription drugs--it's cannabis, coffee, tobacco, and possibly at the very large and rich joints booze, with all the respective licenses require, cannabis license, business license, tobacco license, liquor license--whatever for your particular state or commonwealth you're stationed in. In fact, legalization of cannabis may require expanding the budget of the DEA to hire more personnel to regulate by licensure. Personnel production would not require a license, such as the home gardener who plants a few tobacco plants, or tends a few grape vines to make homemade wine, or is a home brewer of beer, so you would also not require a license to homegrown your own cannabis, for example 10 female plants permissible, 5 in veg 5 in flowering, 1000 in veg 1000 in flowering and no set limit on clones if part of a club or nonprofit organization, no limit to number seeds that can be stored, retail numbers of seeds may be restricted by packaging regulations.

Okay, take it, improve it, but let's see some progress.