A SSDP Christmas for MSSU

Here at SSDP, we hope you and your families had a wonderful holiday and we look forward to the new year to bring about more sensibility to policies surrounding drugs.

If you have a little extra Christmas cheer you'd like to spread, please donate to the Missouri Southern State University (MSSU) SSDP chapter and help them come out to San Francisco on March 12, 2010 for This is Your Brain on Drug Policy: SSDP's International Drug Policy Reform Conference.

The chapter at MSSU has been one of SSDP's most active and talented chapters to date. Just check out all the cool stuff that comes up after a google search of MSSU SSDP. You'll be impressed.

MSSU also submitted this downright hilarious yet heartwarming video of chapter members hoping that Santa Claus will bring them what they truly want for Christmas.

Help Send Students to San Francisco

With SSDP's International Conference rapidly approaching, some SSDP chapters are looking for donations to help them make it out to San Francisco. Each week, I'll be posting a different video from an SSDP chapter or member asking for your help to get them to the conference.

You probably heard about SSDP getting scrooged by those grinches at Chase Bank. The $25,000 we should have won in that contest would have been used for our conference scholarship fund to help bring SSDP chapters out to San Francisco March 12-14 so they can network with hundreds of other SSDP members from around the world and learn A-Z about drug policy and activism.

If you can spare even $10, please make a donation to SSDP's conference scholarship fund. You can even make your donation go to a specific SSDP chapter.

Boycott Chase Bank

It's not because we didn't win. In fact, we're quite positive we did win and that we were disqualified because Chase doesn't agree with our mission. We're boycotting Chase because they refuse to explain whether SSDP and MPP were disqualified from the contest based on the subject matter we work on. (read the previous post to learn more about the contest)

This isn't a case of sour grapes. We know we made it in the top 100 and simply want Chase to admit that SSDP was one of the top 100 organizations voted for by the public and explain that we were disqualified because Chase disagrees with our mission (which they have the right to do).

The New York Times caught wind of the story and talked with Micah Daigle, SSDP's Executive Director and Alex Koroknay-Palicz, Executive Director of the National Youth Rights Association. Just two days before the contest ended, Chase took down the vote counters on each organization's page so it was impossible for any group to tell how many votes they have. Micah and Alex explain how we had to have made the cut:

So some participants created informal leader boards. For instance, the National Youth Rights Association, a tiny nonprofit that works to teach young people about their rights and how to protect them, compiled voting data on almost 400 contestants, and 82 of the organizations that it tracked were among the 100 winners Chase named.

“For the most part, the organizations Chase picked were exactly the organizations we expected to win, because we had spent a lot of time and effort tracking it,” Mr. Koroknay-Palicz said. “So the biggest surprise was SSDP and a couple of pro-life groups, as well as the organization called the Prem Rawat Foundation, didn’t make it, because they had been doing pretty well.”

According to the leader board he created, Students for Sensible Drug Policy collected 2,305 votes through Dec. 9, when organizations no longer could track their votes or see who had voted for them.

At 2,305 votes, SSDP was in 14th place just a few days before the end of the contest. It's very unlikely we were surpassed by so many other organizations. By eliminating us, Chase is trying to send the message that no one cares about the work that non-profits like SSDP are doing. But drug policy reform is no longer a fringe issue; nationwide support for marijuana legalization is greater than ever before, a majority feel the drug war has failed and SSDP's chapter network is growing exponentially.

Most importantly, a giant corporation like Chase should not be presenting the public with a list of organizations it will be donating money to while pretending that all of those groups were selected by voters alone and not by the almighty hand of Chase.

What's so ironic about the whole thing is that SSDP has used Chase Bank for over 3 years - so they have no problem doing business with us but don't want us to participate in their contest. If you're feeling unhappy about Chase's lack of transparency in this contest, then make sure you Pledge to Boycott Chase!

If you're going to boycott Chase, please also consider making a donation to SSDP. If just 1,000 people donate $25, we'll have earned the $25K Chase wouldn't give us. And that's some funding we could use for our upcoming conference!

10 Second Activism - Help SSDP Win $1 Million

That's right folks. In under 10 seconds and with just a few clicks of your mouse you can help SSDP win $1 Million on Facebook!

Just go to Click for Reform and follow the easy-as-pie steps. There's 2 rounds of voting. The 100 organizations with the most votes will each win $25,000 and make it into the 2nd round for a chance at winning $1 Million! (you will have to allow the causes application to be installed)

After you've voted, make sure you join the I Voted for SSDP to Win $1 Million facebook event and set the below image as your Facebook profile picture!

Please share on Facebook, Twitter it, and get the words out any way you can!

The Adventures of SSDP Man!

Please check out the many fantastic videos we received for the the Seeds of Reform conference scholarship party. You'll find a wide spectrum of creative submissions from chapters all around the country letting you know why they need to come to SSDP's 11th Annual International Drug Policy Conference. The students at our UMD chapter tried their hand at rapping about drug policy, Fitchburg State College hopes to lend a helping hand to a community in need, and Northern Virginia Community College introduced the world to the most needed super hero yet, SSDP Man!



In case you're wondering, the Seeds of Reform Party was a huge success and raised over $20,000 for SSDP's conference scholarship fund! I'll post more details and pictures from the party shortly.

SSDP Rocks the DPA Conference

SSDP brought the numbers, energy, and passion of youth to the Drug Policy Alliance conference last week in Albuquerque, NM. Over 60 SSDPers assembled at the final plenary of the conference, chanting "SSDP" and "Education Not Incarceration" so that not one of the over 1,000 conferees could ignore what we brought to the table: organization, unity, chanting.


Our section of the audience burst into boisterous applause when SSDPer, Nubia Legarda, rose to tell her story of drug war violence and her family in El Paso and neighboring Ciudad Juarez.

Nubia's moving story of the human toll of drug prohibition-caused violence highlighted one of the many negative but so often overlooked costs of our current drug policy.

SSDP chapter members, board and staff all helped raise our profile by working our table, presenting on panels, attending workshops, meeting new allies, granting interviews, and hosting a party at our SSDP rental townhouse.

Our huge presence at the DPA conference is just a taste of what people can expect from the upcoming SSDP international conference in San Francisco, CA, March 12-14, 2010.

Check out the videos of students from around the country who are looking for some scholarship funds to make it out to our conference.

Iowa SSDPer Engages Senator Grassley in Op-Ed

University of Iowa SSDP chapter leader, Marni Steadham, has not only gotten an excellent Op-Ed published in the Des Moines Register, but also succeeded in eliciting a response by US Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA)!

Students can play a leading role in opening up an open, honest, and rational discussion of alternatives to the failed war on drugs...in the pages of their state's largest newspaper no less!

Marni's OP-Ed does an excellent job of balancing between being too caustic/presumptuous while still challenging Sen. Grassley:

Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley proposed an amendment to the bill that would prevent discussion or even examination of the possibility that drugs, including medical marijuana, should be decriminalized or legalized. Grassley's weak justification for attempting to suppress these viable policy options is: "The point is, for them to do what we tell them to do." This assertion undermines the very purpose of the commission: For experts to recommend to the Senate alternatives to our current approach to incarceration, regardless of whether these findings conflict with our current "get-tough" approach.

Sen. Grassley's response contains some head-scratching logic:

Finally, I put forward an amendment to address the issue of decriminalization and legalization of any controlled substance. I filed this amendment in an effort to start a debate on this important issue.

While his amendment has sparked some debate on the pages of the Des Moies Register and admirable actions by groups like LEAP, it's hard to see how restricting a commission from considering what is arguably the most sensible means of reducing our prison population will allow for serious consideration of this "important issue."

An examination of decriminalization or legalization in a national commission would not preclude such a discussion in Congress. In fact, it may demonstrate to many legislators the increasing evidence from either our past or from overseas that these alternatives are not only effective at reducing the harms associated with drug use, but also can keep thousands of non-violent offenders from wasting their time and our money behind bars.

Rhode Island Eliminates Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences

I have to say, I love my hometown of Rhode Island. We are showing the world how to create sensible policies surrounding medical marijuana and are reforming devastating mandatory minimum sentencing for drug possession - all through the legislature. All this despite a governor that has an itchy veto finger when anything calling for common sense drug policy hits his desk.

Set to take effect next month, RI will now allow judges to use discretion when deciding the appropriate sentence for a drug possession offender.

PROVIDENCE—A new law eliminating mandatory minimum drug sentences in Rhode Island has taken effect without the governor’s signature.

Similar measures had been vetoed in past years by Gov. Don Carcieri. But supporters say they compromised on this year’s legislation by removing a provision that placed a cap on the maximum sentence a judge could give for drug possession crimes.

The new law, which took effect this month, leaves the sentence to the judge’s discretion.

Under the old law, anyone caught manufacturing, possessing or dealing up to one kilogram of heroin or cocaine, or up to five kilograms of marijuana, could face a minimum 10-year sentence.

I think it's no coincidence that the RI state motto is HOPE.

Transform drug policy foundation, a UK think tank, recently released a report that details various models of regulation in a post-prohibition world. It's all too common for opponents of the war on drugs to criticize current drug policy without giving proper consideration to a more effective paradigm. The report, entitled "After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation," provides drug policy reformers with a variety of useful responses to the question, "What would the world be like after drug prohibition?"

Prohibition allows drugs to be supplied by criminals, who routinely use violence to secure maximum possible profits. Additionally, the buyer is deprived of the information and resources that would reduce the harms associated with drug use.


On the other end of the spectrum, the "hands-off" or laissez-faire approach, would end the black-market violence that prohibition inspires but would also prevent the implementation of important harm-reduction policies. Legalization and regulation is essentially a marriage between the absolutist positions of prohibition and laissez-faire.


The report discusses the options for regulating drugs and makes recommendations for each individual drug. The options range from pharmacies distributing drugs, to various licensing schemes, to coffee-shop style sales. For cannabis, the report recommends the licensing of coffee-shops to distribute and provide users a place for consumption. Additionally, the THC content would be clearly indicated on the packaging and prices would be set by the government. For cocaine, the report recommends that the drug be sold only to licensed users by a pharmacy-style business, possibly with the requirement of a prescription.

Even if you don't agree with the specific recommendations that the author makes, these post-prohibition ideas provide valuable fodder for thinking about a world without the war on drugs.

LEAP Tells the DEA What's Up About Marijuana Scheduling

Last week the American Medical Association (AMA) announced its support of removing marijuana from Schedule I status. The AMA has refused to budge on this for a long time now, and opponents of marijuana law reform often cite the organization’s stance in their argument that pot prohibition is a good thing.

The DEA hasn't made a stink about the announcement but I highly doubt they're happy about it. Yesterday, however, the agency removed that particular bulletpoint from its list of reasons why pot should remain illegal.

What made them take down the bulletpoint? I doubt they were worried about misinformation since the rest of the website is full of it. I think it was Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), a group of police officers, judges, lawyers, and many other law-enforcement officials who oppose drug prohibition. LEAP organized a letter-writing campaign to Attorney General Eric Holder requesting the site be updated and bam! it was taken down a week later.

I guess I'm left to wonder, if the DEA were truly transparent, as it claims to be, wouldn’t it not only remove the previous AMA position but replace it with the association’s new stance?