Top 20 Schools for Drug Policy Activism 2010

On newsstands this week, the October issue of High Times magazine features the Top 20 Institutions of Higher Education, their "annual list of schools and universities for students committed to marijuana activism". Compiled by SSDP staff members, this list reflects our chapters who have done outstanding work to reform marijuana and other drug policies at their schools during the 2009-2010 school year. Make sure to pick up a copy to read the full article with details on the amazing work these chapters did over the past year to earn this distinction.

1. Ithaca College Ithaca, NY
2. University of Utah Salt Lake City, UT
3. Kent State University Kent, OH
4. Northern Virginia Community College Woodbridge, VA
5. University of Iowa Iowa City, IA
6. Front Range Community College Boulder, CO
7. University of Maryland College Park, MD
8. University of Arkansas Fayetteville, AR
9. West Virginia University Morgantown, WV
10. University of Connecticut Storrs, CT
11. University of Texas El Paso, TX
12. Northern Illinois University Dekalb, IL
13. Black Hills State University Spearfish, SD
14. Brown University Providence, RI
15. Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond, VA
16. University of Miami Miami, FL
17. San Francisco State University San Francisco, CA
18. SUNY New Paltz New Paltz, NY
19. Reed College Portland, OR
20. Mills College Oakland, CA

Congratulations to all SSDP chapter members for your outstanding work advancing the student movement to end the war on drugs!

Stay tuned for updates from all of our 132 active chapters as they begin the 2010-2011 school year this month through our Action Alert list, Facebook Page & Cause, and Twitter.

Chapter members: check out this page to learn about how your chapter's work can be featured in High Times.

SSDP Chapter Gets Marijuana Reform to the Ballot!

Voters in the city of Kalamazoo [MI] are one step closer to deciding whether to liberalize the way law enforcement deals with the possession of small amounts of marijuana in the city.

The Kalamazoo Coalition for Pragmatic Cannabis Laws turned in 4,776 signatures to the City Clerk's Office on Monday - 2,000 more than required - seeking to amend the city charter to state that the possession of 1 ounce or less of marijuana by those 21 and older should be the "lowest possible priority" for law enforcement.

The clerk's office has 45 days to certify the signatures, but they are expected to be certified by some time mid to late next week, office officials said. The coalition needs at least 2,752 signatures of registered voters to get the issue on the Nov. 2 ballot.

Click Here to Read the Initiative

The SSDP chapter at Western Michigan University took the lead on collecting signatures for this ballot initiative early in the summer. Chapter President Alexander Lanning worked countless hours with his chapter and the Kalamazoo Coalition for Pragmatic Cannabis Laws in order to make this happen. SSDP board member and University of Michigan alum Chris Chiles also helped significantly in these efforts. While the signatures haven't been certified yet, by collecting 2,000 more than they needed, it's almost guaranteed to make the ballot.

Congratulations go out to all who worked on making this happen. Lowest law enforcement priority campaigns can be launched in many cities and provide a great way to inspire your chapter members and build coalitions in your communities. If your chapter is interested in running one, contact your outreach director.

Production! Sale! Distribution! Legalize!

Vicente Fox, as president, and Ernesto Zedillo, his immedidate predecessor.

Both favor legalization of drugs. Their successor, Felipe Calderon, does not.

Early last week, Felipe Calderon hummed and hahed over legalizing drugs, preferring instead to talk about how he favored a debate about drug legalization. Newspapers from around the world suggested that Calderon had warmly invited a debate.

Yet late last week, his immediate predecessor, Vicente Fox Quesada (2000 - 2006), offered a more concrete proposal. Where Calderon prejudiced his comments about debate by declaring disfavor for legalization, Fox intimated that the debate about legalization -- with evidence in hand and at least in his mind -- has already been won. Motivated in part by a desire to confront the 28,000 corpses from drug violence since 2006, and resurrect Mexico in the world's eyes, Fox offered his own recipe for the debate about legalization.

The legal production, sale, and distribution of all drugs.

It was a practical post from the former Coca Cola Mexico chief executive. Before he dealt with drugs, Fox wrote that Mexico would need to take the Army off its streets and return them to their barracks. A new National Police should be created, and its constitution operate at a state level. Citizens should -- as a way to reduce politicking over security -- elect those responsible for safety, like police chiefs, and other security professionals. There would also be a need to reform the Ministerios Publicos, agents who help prosecutors with the inquisitorial process in the judicial system.

Fox didn't just focus on public safety reforms. He suggested that a broad, advertised health campaign could help prevent addiction, or help those already addicted to rehabilitation.

Fox made sure -- unlike his successor Felipe Calderon -- to not take a position in favor or against drugs. Rather his position is borne of real politik:

"we have to see the outcome of a strategy to hit and break the
economic structure of the mafias to generate enormous profits in
commerce. [Prohibition] serves to corrode and increase their
hold on power."

Before he drew his post to a close -- in a comment that should have been directed at Calvina Fey of the Drug Free America Foundation -- Fox wrote that radical prohibition "has never functioned." Instead, he suggested that his position has three bases: 1. experience, 2. self-criticism, and 3. "successful practices from other countries."

Fox now joins three other former Latin American presidents, Zedillo of Mexico, Gaviria of Colombia, and Cardoso of Brazil in declaring the death of the War on Drugs. Barack Obama's drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, has suggested it should end, but the U.S. remains wedded to a zero tolerance counter-narcotics strategy. Last week it posted 1,200 National Guard to the U.S. border area.

Mexico Did Not Legalize Drugs

And neither did the UK. But that's not stopping those opposing California's Proposition 19 from lying about it on television (either they're lying or they know so little about drug policy, they actually believe it to be true).

First, Jane Hamsher went on CNN to discuss the campaign alongside No on Prop 19 spokesman, Tim Rosales. Rosales claims, "They've tried it in Mexico, uh, they've seen an explosion in drug violence..."

First of all, Mexico has never legalized marijuana. What they have done is decriminalize the personal possession of small amounts of all drugs. Decriminalization is not legalization. Furthermore, decriminalization was a response to the explosion of drug violence that was already occurring thanks to drug prohibition here in the U.S. and was intended to allow law enforcement to focus more on cartels than users. Rosales goes on to say that legalization would give cartels a platform to sell marijuana. Scott Morgan easily debunks that statement over at the Speakeasy blog.

Then there is the Bishop Ron Allen from Sacramento, California who SSDP's Aaron Houston had the pleasure of debating. The Bishop has more difficulty keeping his composure and controlling the words that come out of his mouth than Rosales did. He claims that both Mexico and the UK have tried legalizing all drugs - something that would probably surprise the UK chapters of SSDP.

This is all pretty basic information. You don't need to be a sociologist or policy wonk to find out whether or not entire countries like Mexico or the UK have legalized drugs. But I guess the requirements for managing an anti-legalization campaign or becoming a spokesperson against sensible drug policy reform are pretty low. You just have to be a good liar or a raving lunatic.

Stop lying about Prop 19 and marijuana legalization.

Just Say Now!

Sign the Petition

SSDP's partnership with Firedoglake and LEAP for the Just Say Now campaign is officially underway.

Just Say Now's advisory board includes former law enforcement officers, physicians, and others from all sides of the political spectrum. Some notable members include Bruce Fein, Associate Deputy Attorney General and General Counsel to the Federal Communications Commission under President Reagan.

We have started a petition through the campaign calling on President Obama to end marijuana prohibition. Sign it

Man Arrested for Providing Drunk People Free Rides

In an effort to help keep drunk drivers off the roads, Jonathan Schoenakase of Quincy, Illinois decided that he would start giving would-be drunk drivers rides home, free of charge.

His service operates only on donations and when things started to pick up, he decides to bring on another car and a bus. But taxi companies, annoyed that Schoenakase was stealing their drunken customers (in reality, he was preventing people who don't take taxis from getting behind the wheel) went to the city and demanded that all taxis must have a sign saying "for hire" in order to operate - making Schoenakase's business unable to operate legally since he only took donations.

He continued to pick people up and was arrested by a plain clothes police officer in a sting operation.

Jonathon Schoenakase, 1711 Melview Road, was arrested at 1:30 Saturday morning after he picked up a plain clothes Quincy Police officer from the Phoenix night club.

Lt. Jason Simmons says the sting was conducted following complaints about Schoenakase's continuing operations from "other licensed operators".

Safe ride programs, something SSDP promotes on college campuses, should be a no-brainer. Whether they're allowed to operate under a taxi license or some other regulation, a city government should be working with someone who is keeping drunk drivers off the road instead of arresting them. That's bad policy.

Fence Sitting: Felipe Calderon's "Debate" about Drug Legalization in Mexico

Note: Remarks in Spanish about Legalization Begin Around Minute 13:00

The ebb and flow of Mexican President Felipe Calderon's recent remarks acknowledging the need for a debate in Mexico about drug legalization, reminded me of a history professor of mine in the University of London. When asked about the appropriate position to take in writing an essay--a written form of debate--he said that English men never took a position, and he quipped that they liked fence-sitting because they relished the sensation.

It's hard to believe that Felipe Calderon enjoys the way he's chosen to sit on the fence of a debate about drug legalization. What did he say about a legalization of drugs debate to a gathering of Church, civic leaders, and government ministers at a conference on Tuesday 3 August? Did he call for a debate, as some websites and some papers claimed, or were his comments more muted, acknowledging a debate could occur but not really support its substance?

Calderon's remarks, which were recorded, archived, and transcribed on the Presidencia's website, are worth reading verbatim. Contrary to what the papers printed, he's clearly not going to do anything to promote a debate about legalization. Calderon's words reveal a president not taking a position, opening up debate, but stifling its outcome. It's not fence-sitting at all, it's jeopardizing a debate before it has been joined. It reveals a supportive view of a government policy--prohibition--that has occasioned the deaths of 28,000 people.

For the record, Calderon said:

"I take note, of the debate that has arisen here, about the regulation of drugs. It's a fundamental debate that I think ought primarily to exist in a plural democracy, and that it's a good thing to have this debate in the country. What they ought always to analyze profoundly are the conveniences and inconvenieces. The arguments of one and the other are fundamental.

On one side, there are those who allege precisely, that legalization] would imply an enormous increase of consumption in various generations of Mexicans, partly because of economic effect itself would diminish the price. In part, this increase would come about because of availability; in part, also because of the idea it creates ultimately that it is acceptable and socially good, and even let's say medicinal, that cultural uses hold high importance. Legalization implies that a country takes a decision to risk various generations of young people and adolescents.

But, on the other, it has important economic value, in the sense that it reduces important income sources for criminality.

On the other hand, however, if the best argument in favor of legalization is, precisely, that the reduction in the black market price will generate benefits, and if these are products not determined by national price and to one of our sides is the greatest consumer of drugs in the world; it means that the price is determined internationally, so that what we do ourelves in respect to this subject of price is going to be irrelevant and we are only going to pay negative consequences and, really rather little or nothing of the positive benefits."

It's important to notice what he failed to say about legalization. Calderon failed to mention that three former Latin American Presidents, Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, and Cesar Gaviria of Colombia, all working in consort with other noted people, have urged countries to consider the legalization of marijuana. He didn't acknowledge the current debate in California, the world's sixth largest economy, which is preparing to vote on a ballot initiative legalizing marijuana. Calderon also didn't mention relevant examples of past and ongoing decriminalization, such as Portugal, where drug addiction rates have decreased and not increased.

Within hours, the press office of Los Pinos (Calderon's official offices and residence) offered a clarification of his statement. It's difficult to enhance a position that seems clearly to talk around a policy of legalization. The Latin American Herald Tribune reported that Calderon does not want legalization at all. Was he proposing simply to talk about the idea, rather than deliberate a policy?

The former seems to be the case. Calderon's press office concluded its statement summarizing the president's words:

"Hence, although being against the legalization of drugs, President Calderon is not opposed to a debate around this theme."

Doesn't seem that supportive, does it? Well, at least he doesn't just say no.

President Obama Signs Fair Sentencing Act

Today, President Obama signed into law the Fair Sentencing Act, reducing the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine from a 100:1 to 18:1 ratio. 

This is a historic day in drug policy and marks a significant reform to what was arguably the worst drug law ever enacted. 

SSDP's Aaron Houston was on Russia Today to discuss the sentencing disparity and what the new law means. Attempting to counter Aaron's arguments is TJ McCormack, a conservative radio show host. McCormack doesn't seem to know too much about the sentencing disparity and says some pretty outrageous things like President Obama is "pandering to African Americans" by signing this bill into law.  

Felipe's Folly: "the violence is going to remain a while with us."

Isn't blood on a premier's hands a potent symbol, often of failure?

Not in Mexico, it seems. The country's president, Felipe Calderon Hinojosa, fails to be deterred from war against the drug trafficking organizations by the blooshed it has incurred. No quip or quote makes up for Felipe's folly. Indeed, the man from Michoacan, as Calderon could be known, seems to be able to turn policy failure into an argument for its continuation. As with Washington, D.C., -- as with all poles of power -- Mexico City is a looking-glass world.

Consider the following: Mexico, especially its north, has long been the most dangerous place for journalists to work in the Americas. In a hopefully unusual series of events, last week Mexico observers followed news of a prison director in Durango facilitating a mass murder at a party in Torreon. Then followed the kidnapping of four journalists covering news of a riot at the same prison. These journalists work in extremely dangerous conditions: the country has seen journalists' deaths climb to at least sixty since 2000. (The four journalists from Durango have since been released.) But what's more remarkable is that Calderon immediately used those journalists' kidnappings to signal a new intensity in his war, old yet seemingly new arguments about how violence must be used to defend democracy.

In a sleight of hand known only to self-righteous politicians, the president went as far to say that the drug trafficking organizations have "no limits or scruples."

But what really seems to have no limit under this president -- who has two more years to serve until Mexicans elect a new leader -- are the counting of the dead. The numbers go up and then they soar. (Nobody registers the dead people's names, the human rights abuse of failing to identify is not even an issue brought up by the Mexican mavens at the U.S. State Department.)

This summer has seen astronomical increases in registered homicides. In mid-July 2010, the Attorney General's office tallied 25,000 people as having died in the drug war since 2006. Fast forward a couple of weeks and a new total provided by the Center for Research and National Security (CISEN), a branch of Mexico's Federal Government, jacks the figure up to 28,000.

Felipe Calderon's comment? He sees no end in sight. Mexican newspaper El Financiero reports that Calderon stated that "the violence is going to remain a while with us."

Some analysts offer a correction to Felipe's folly. The problem is they have no place in the power structure. Ernesto Lopez Portillo, director of the Institute for Security and Democracy, offered his take on a war that has seen increasing amounts of funds coming to Mexico via the U.S. Department of State and the Merida Initiative for drug interdiction.

"We are at the stage of having more resources and not having better
results," Lopez Portillo said.

Another security analyst, Eduardo Guerrero, was reported by newspaper Milenio to have said that when the government's forces killed leaders of drug trafficking organizations, such as Nacho Coronel in late July -- the executive branch didn't seem to consider the wave of violence that might spring from it.

"What is more important, controlling demand for methamphetamine or controlling
the wave of violence?"

We know Calderon's answer to Guerrero's question. Soldier on. Quite literally.

So, with his talk of a new wave of violence and its duration, President Calderon has managed to turn a blind eye to his fellow citizen's bloodshed. And he has used the dead bodies to the defence of what is obviously his zero sum strategy -- bloodymindedness might be a better word -- against the drug trafficking organizations.

No One Is Talking About America's Opium Hypocrisy

The ridiculously hypocritical situation connecting the US occupation of Afganistan, the world's leader in opium production, and our failed drug war is old news, but we must keep talking about it. Unfortunately, as the drug war issue is discussed and debated more and more on TV and on the Internet, it is an issue that is hardly ever mentioned by our fellow soldiers and allies, though this information can be used to gain some powerful leverage against our opponents.

The whole issue breaks down like this:

• The US law enforcement system is waging a war against users and dealers of various illegal drugs including certain forms of opium such as heroine.
• One of the side effects of the drug war is that US citizens are being incarcerated at ridiculous rates, and poor minority youth are targeted at incredibly disproportionate rates by police that flood poorer neighborhoods while avoiding white middle-class and upper-class neighborhoods.
• Afganistan has been one of the world's leading opium suppliers, though the Taliban had instituted a ban on opium production in the area right before the US invasion of 2001. Opium production collapsed about 90% as a result of the ban.
• The US supported Northern Alliance ended the ban on opium production to win the hearts and minds of the local population, which has been heavily dependent upon the sale and production of opium in the past. The US government believes this is a necessary evil in order to keep the locals from hating and possibly attacking US soldiers.
• In 2007, 6 years after the start of the Afganistan war, the US Department of State determines that 93% of the world's illegal opium supply comes from Afganistan.
• The US government continues to incarcerate drug addicts alongside drug dealers, and our incarceration system is inadequate at curing addiction, a disease that often requires medical attention and supervision. In addition, jails and prisons serve as social centers for addicts and dealers, allowing the two groups to exchange phone numbers and email addresses in order to meet with each other once their sentences are up.

In the end, the US government is allowing opium production to flourish in Afganistan, and a large chunk of the opium that Afganistan produces will make its way to the US, allowing American heroine and opium addicts to feed their addictions while also punishing them for doing so. And all of this occurs at the cost of the American tax payer, and the whole system allows drug cartels and possibly terrorist organizations to fund their illegal and often violent operations with the money they make selling drugs to US citizens.