Just Say Know!

Apparently, planning a conference doesn't leave you with much time to blog about planning a conference. Or much time to do much else, for that matter...

So if you haven't heard, in less than one week, SSDP will be hosting its biggest conference ever at Georgetown University Law Center. I could spend time filling you in on all the details, or you could just check it out here.

Today, we got some exciting news that MSNBC's Bill Press has agreed to join The Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page for a midday plenary at the conference! You'll recognize Bill Press from CNN's Crossfire or MSNBC's Buchanan & Press. For a blast from the past, check out this Crossfire debate between DPA's Ethan Nadelmann (also an SSDP conference speaker) and John Ashcroft.

And if you are unfamiliar with Clarence Page, watch him produce a genuine Bill O'Reilly meltdown on the O'Reilly Factor.

Once you check out the updated conference schedule, I'm sure you'll want to be here. Luckily for you, it's not too late to register.

Don't forget...

VOTE!

More on the medical marijuana t-shirt confiscations

In the case of the two South Dakota high school students whose shirts displaying support for SD Initiated Measure 4 were confiscated by their principal, in my judgment the school district hasn't got a legal leg to stand on. I believe that these two students' constitutional right to free speech was restricted by their school administration, and I hope that the courts rule this way and remedy the injustice that was done.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1969 in Tinker v. Des Moines that public schools may make no prohibitions on the expression of student opinion unless that expression "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others." Moreover, the school must be able to demonstrate that the prohibition itself "is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others" (emphasis mine). The curtailment of speech that happened in South Dakota simply don't pass either of the tests.

In my (admittedly lay) opinion, the ban on clothing depicting drug-related images ought to be lifted. Even if the district administration does have a sincere concern for ensuring that their students don't get the message that teen drug use is OK, not all depictions of drugs do advocate their use by the students. The t-shirts in question are a perfect example that "depiction = advocacy" isn't necessarily always the case. But a better example would be the drug education materials and D.A.R.E. presentations that are often accompanied by pictures and even samples for students to view up-close. Does the principal or the district consider these materials and presentations to be advocating drug use as well? The district's concern that all depictions of drugs necessarily advocate their use is not justified, and not even internally consistent.

The students' t-shirts, if anything, ought to enjoy the greatest First Amendment protection possible. They are political speech and, of all the different types of speech that the Constitution protects, political speech is the one that lies closest to the very heart of our democracy. The only grounds on which I could envision a court ruling against the students would be if it found that the pictures of marijuana leaves simply didn't constitute speech. But given the context (t-shirts with messages favoring the passage of an initiative to regulate marijuana for medical use), it hardly seems plausible to me that the courts could deny that the shirts--pictures and all--constituted speech. After all, if the principal weren't concerned that the display of the images were communicating something, she never would have confiscated the shirts in the first place.

There are no legal grounds on which the school district ought to prevail in this case, should any of the aggreived parties decide to take it to court. If that happens, though, it should be a fun case to watch. If it makes its way all the way to the Supreme Court, it'll be an interesting test of what the court with its current makeup thinks of Tinker. Here's hoping that justice prevails.

Medical Marijuana Shirts Confiscated at SD High-School

Thanks to Pete @ Drug War Rant for this one.
South Dakota: Two Steven High School seniors who wore t-shirts to school advocating the passage of Initiated Measure 4, the medical marijuana ballot issue, SAY their rights to political free speech were violated when the school principal confiscated the shirts, which were decorated with the image of a marijuana leaf. Get the story here.

----------------------

David Valenzuela, 17, and Chris Fuentes, 18, were told by a Stevens security guard to remove the shirts as they entered their first period class Oct. 20. Principal Katie Bray confiscated the shirts a short time later.

Rapid City superintendent of schools Peter Wharton said Thursday the incident was a violation of school policy, not political rights. School policy forbids clothing that displays images of alcohol, drugs or tobacco products on school grounds.

This fall, numerous SHS students have worn t-shirts with an image of a human fetus and the message “Save a Life, Vote Yes on Referred Law 6.” “We had been seeing all these abortion shirts at school, and we thought, OK, I guess we can get political,” Valenzuela said of his decision to wear the shirt to school. Valenzuela’s green, tie-dyed shirt features a white, stylized image of a marijuana leaf, along with the hand-lettered message, “Vote Yes on Initiated Measure 4.”

Valenzuela and Fuentes say they will take Wharton up on his invitation to continue their medical marijuana t-shirt campaign, sans image, in the days leading up to Tuesday’s election.

------------------------

In my high school the same thing would have happened. However, I think that if the shirts had siad "Vote No on Initiated Measuere 4" and had an image of a pot leaf with a big red "X" over it, there would not have been an issue (just my opinion). The same could be said for anti-tobacco, alcohol, or other drugs put on a T-shirt.

Still there needs to be the argument of why not allow students to wear a shirt that is clearly not supporting the use of marijuana in general, but instead a specific ballot issue? This is a way to get students involved in the political process and if anything they should be applauded for their efforts. Besides, a hemp leaf is always nicer to look at than a fetus. ( Not just my opinion).

But hey, look at the bright side, maybe this school just helped us get two more SSDP members!

UMD Resolution Fails in RHA

The UMD SSDP chapter is hard at work again. This time helping to bring a resolution to reduce marijuana penalties on campus. Unfortunately the resolution was not passed but I can't see how that would slow down this SSDP chapter.

-----------------------------------------------------

Under the current policy, first-time offenders are hit with an automatic suspension, loss of on-campus housing and a mandatory two-year enrollment in a substance-abuse prevention program.

Under the RHA's proposed changes, authored by RHA Vice President Sumner Handy, these students would have only received a citation and a warning. Additionally, Resident Assistants would no longer be trained to call police in the event that they suspected use or possession of the drug.

Lockwood said despite the results of last spring's referendum - a public opinion poll in which 65 percent of 4,376 participants voted in favor of reducing discipline imposed on marijuana users - the RHA lacked credible evidence to show student support of the resolution.

The SSDP proposal, which will appear before the University Senate before the end of the semester, aims to change the wording in the Code of Student Conduct where the first-time possession of the drug is currently listed as an "aggravated offense," lumping it with other penalties that include hate crimes, arson and sexual assault.

-----------------------------------------------------

Possession of marijuana is an "aggravated offense?" Thats news to me. Whats aggravating is that students are unfairly punished and have their academics negatively impacted in a way that marijuana use alone could never achieve. Stacia Cosner and friends rock.

The ball is in Congress's court - Act now!

I'm outraged to announce that on Friday, a federal judge granted the Bush administration's motion to dismiss Students for Sensible Drug Policy's lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law that strips financial aid from college students with drug convictions.

Now, more than ever, it's time to pressure Congress to do its job and overturn the unfair and harmful penalty that has prevented nearly 200,000 would-be students from getting their lives back on track. We've made it easy for you to send a message to your legislators with just a few clicks.

Even though the judge didn't rule that the penalty is unconstitutional, he did agree with us that it "results in some inequality." For now, the ball is in Congress's court.

While it's unfortunate that students harmed by this penalty won't yet have our day in court, we will soon be heard in the halls of Congress. On November 17, hundreds of SSDP members will take our concerns directly to lawmakers' doorsteps when we gather in Washington, DC for our national lobby day and conference. To follow up on the letters you send, we'll be asking members of Congress to support H.R. 1184, the Removing Impediments to Students' Education (RISE) Act, which already has 71 co-sponsors and would overturn the harmful penalty.

We're currently consulting with our dedicated attorneys at the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project and will decide shortly if we'll be appealing the ruling. You can find out more about the lawsuit here.

In the meantime, please contact your legislators today and tell them to do the right thing by repealing this penalty.

Join SSDP FHSU!

Heres what Laura A. Green, Executive Director of the Drug Policy Forum of Kansas had to say about SSDP in an October 27th OpEd in the Fort Hayes State University Paper:

--------------------------------

To date, nearly 200,000 students have been denied or had their federal loans, grants and work-study delayed because of the HEA Aid Elimination Penalty.

Until early in 2006, this penalty was applied to any drug conviction a person had received whether or not they were in school when the offense occurred. Due to the efforts of the organization Students for Sensible Drug Policy (www.ssdp.org), who worked with Congress to scale back the law, now only people who are convicted while in college and receiving financial aid can have their eligibility taken away.

Fortunately, there are students who are continuing to educate fellow students and challenge the government’s drug control policies. Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) argue “statistics and common sense tell us it doesn’t make sense to pull students out of school if we want to reduce drug abuse and encourage young people to become successful citizens. The Aid Elimination Policy of the Higher Education Act obstructs the path to education. It perverts the Act’s important, noble intentions.”

I urge students to get involved in SSDP — an international grassroots network of students who are concerned about the impact drug abuse has on our communities, but who also know that the War on Drugs is failing their generation and our society.
---------------------

Thanks for letting students know what SSDP is all about. Hopefully this letter, titled Students for Sensible Drug Policy Wanted, will spark the formation of a new SSDP Chapter at Fort Hayes State University.

Souder's hometown paper endorses the other guy

The Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette has endorsed for election to the U.S. House of Representatives the challenger to Rep. Mark Souder, the harshest drug warrior in Congress. In announcing its support for Tom Hayhurst, the Democrat in the race, the editorial board cited Souder's idiotic HEA Aid Elimination Penalty and the particularly devastating impact it has on his own state of Indiana (as reveled in a report released earlier this year by SSDP).

Despite 12 years in Congress, Souder, 56, has yet to earn a committee chairmanship. The issues he has chosen to emphasize, such as reversing a local decision to ban assault weapons in Washington, D.C., and preserving lighthouses, have done little to help the nation or his district. And some of Souder’s other efforts, such as his bill prohibiting college students with drug convictions from getting financial aid, have hurt Hoosiers. Indiana leads the nation in the rate of college students denied federal aid because of the law. Hayhurst is the better choice for voters of the 3rd District.

Without Souder around, it will be much easier for us to get rid of the unfair and harmful penalty next Congress. We'll see what happens...

Up next... cigarette prohibition?

The Drug Policy Alliance recently commissioned a Zogby poll, asking if Americans would support prohibiting tobacco over the next five to ten years.

The results are absolutely terrifying. 45% of Americans agree that we should make tobacco illegal.

The news gets worse. Among Americans aged 18 - 29, support for tobacco prohibition is at 57%!

That's our generation, folks.

Watch DPA's Ethan Nadelmann explain why tobacco prohibition is a very bad idea:



You might say, "Why worry? The tobacco companies are too powerful to ever allow this to happen!" You might be right. But that's not the point.

The point is that we, the generation raised on D.A.R.E. style misinformation and scare tactics, have an obligation to show our peers that prohibiting potentially dangerous substances does nothing to protect us from those substances. History has shown us that it never has, and common sense tells us that it never will. In fact, it only makes the problem much worse.

But if young people are the constituency that supports tobacco prohibition more than anyone else (7% more than evangelical Christians!), then we need to work harder, folks. I'm proud that my generation has been so successful at giving up cigarettes, but holy smokes... there's no need to throw the Marlboro Man in jail!

If you'd like to get involved in the fight to turn back the destructive tide of prohibitionism, while meeting drug policy gurus like Ethan Nadelmann, register for SSDP's conference today!

Everything Seems Fine With My Head in The Sand

The New York Times put out a piece today discussing the horrific amount of murders, torture, and kidnapping that is associated with drug Mexican drug cartels. With atrocious levels of violence, Mexican cartels are attacking the Judges, policeman, and citizens in a campaign terror unseen outside of Baghdad. For once, the drugs were not blamed as the cause of the violence. No story about killers doped on whatever drug it is that government windbags espouse as being linked to violence this generation, but rather a story of how the drug trade is to blame.

As much as I am disparaged that the piece by Mr. McKinley fails to question why no one has thought of looking for a solution to this violence, I applaud it for putting the facts out there plainly for all to see, even if it may have been unintentional. The black market of drugs causes violence and death that would not be associated with a regulated market! How often do you hear about Miller vs. Budweiser battles being fought with automatic weapons? When was the last time that Bayer® tortured Glaxo Smith Klien® employees over rights to sell arthritis medicine to a certain hospital? Why do we support this kind of horrible pain and suffering by keeping all drugs illegal?

The most interesting point in the article was this quote:

Mexico’s law enforcement officials maintain that the violence is a sign that they have made progress dismantling the major organized crime families in the country. The arrests of several drug cartel leaders and their top lieutenants have set off a violent struggle among second-rank mobsters for trade routes, federal prosecutors say. The old order has been fractured, and the remaining drug dealers are killing one another or making new alliances.

“These alliances are happening because none of the organizations can control, on its own, the territory it used to control, and that speaks to the crisis that they are in,” said José Luis Santiago Vasconcelos, the top federal prosecutor for organized crime.

So what you are telling me is that every time you destabilize a cartel all you are going to do is increase the violence associated with the drug trade, and yet you are going to continue to plod along this poorly planned path? By turning 10 large organizations into 100 smaller organizations, you just made your job more difficult if not impossible. At what point do you raise your head out of the sand and ask yourself, “Is there a better way to solve this problem?”.

Drugs can be bad. The pain and suffering of drug addiction is reaped onto everyone who loves the addict. However, we must never forget that concentrated pain of prohibition does nothing to ease the pain of addiction, and may in fact make it worse by forcing the addict into the criminal justice system instead of treatment.