Is the Capital of Tennessee About to Decriminalize Marijuana?

By: Barry Donegan - A tipping point may have just been reached on the issue of marijuana decriminalization in Nashville, Tennessee. At a Tuesday candidate forum for Nashville’s 2015 mayoral race, five out of seven candidates for mayor signaled their support of or openness to the idea of decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana, a fact which Tennessean writer Joey Garrison called “a sign of changing attitudes toward the drug that could boost ongoing efforts to change the law in Davidson County.” The ongoing efforts he mentioned include the pro-pot group TN-NORML‘s drive to collect signatures for a petition to place a referendum on August’s city-wide general election ballot that would allow voters to choose whether to de facto decriminalize the possession of under two ounces of marijuana by defunding prosecutions at the city level. (read more)

Barry Donegan served as Director-at-Large of the Davidson County Republican Party from 2009-2011 and was the Middle Tennessee Regional Coordinator for Ron Paul's 2012 Presidential Campaign.

Top Stories

Judson Phillips says it is time to end the war on drugs. His solution is no solution.

Judson Phillips, the founder of Tea Party Nation and an early leader in establishing the Nashville tea party movement, is now a columnist with The Washington Times. In his WT column last Friday he argues that it is time to end the war on drugs. I could not agree more. Phillips lays out how the war on drugs as been a failure and the ill effects it has created and the unintended consequences of this failed policy:

Today it consumes billions of dollars. It has created a law enforcement profit industry, where law enforcement can take money and property away from innocent people. These people, who are frequently not even charged with a crime, are forced to go to court, if they can afford a lawyer, and they are forced to prove their property is lawfully theirs.

The war on drugs has incarcerated tens of thousands of people whose only crime was a drug offense. It has created Mexican drug cartels that terrorize not only Mexico but are now reaching into the United States. These cartels reap huge profits from illegal drugs.

Phillips goes on to argue however that in replacing the War on Drugs, we should regulate drugs and users. He proposes that those who want to use drugs should have to register with the government and they would be prohibited form working in certain occupations and would be prohibited from using public assistance programs. He says, "The the penalties for possession of drugs by an unregistered user should be draconian."

I am afraid what Phillips is proposing is no solution at all. There are a lot of causal and occasional users of marijuana. Does one seriously think these people would register with the government? I know I wouldn't, (if I was a user). There are a lot of users of pot who may only occasionally smoke at parties or with close friends. These users are more like social drinkers. They are not going to register as drug users. There are also users who may smoke a little dope now and then in the privacy of their home. They may get a little buzz a few times a week but they smoke small quantities and a little may last them for months. Does anyone think these people will register with the government and get their drug-user permit? I think very few user of pot, the most prevalent illegal drug, would register?

Maybe registering  heroin addicts has some merit, but I doubt it would work with other drugs. His proposal would not end the war on drugs because to continue draconian measures for non registered users is to continue the war on drugs.

I think we should partially decriminalize pot immediately. No one should be imprisoned for possession of small amounts. Then, we should regulate it, perhaps following the pattern of Amsterdam, or perhaps taxing it and regulating it  much like we do alcohol. I am not coming from an absolutist libertarian position on this issue, but a more pragmatic view. Pot is relatively harmless. It is less harmful than alcohol by far, both as a social problem and a health problem. People should not be criminals for using it. Prohibition of marijuana has not worked. This does not mean that I think meth or heroin or all other drugs should be legalized. We need to decide the best policy with regards to crack and power cocaine. Should those two forms of the same drug be treated so differently?  This, and the policy on other drugs should be examined, but decriminalizing pot is a good place to start. If we end the war on pot, we have ended about 90% of the war on drugs.

I am glad to see Justin Phillips recognize that, "The drug war has been a total disaster on every front." I am afraid however, that his proposal is not an improvement and would not end that war.

Top Stories

A Conservative Case for Prison Reform

by Daniel Horwitz

In the op-ed section of today’s New York Times, conservative icon Richard Viguerie makes a compelling case that our nation’s criminal justice system offends foundational conservative values and requires comprehensive reform.  Citing the right’s commitment to reining in out-of-control government spending and promoting both public safety and compassion, Viguerie argues that America’s prison system violates several principles that lie “at the core of conservative philosophy,” and calls upon conservatives to subject our national system of mass incarceration “to the same level of skepticism and scrutiny that we apply to any other government program.”  Ultimately coming to the conclusion that our entire criminal justice system is “another government spending program fraught with the issues that plague all government programs,” Viguerie joins prominent G.O.P. leaders like Jeb Bush, Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist and the NRA’s David Keene in demanding “an alternative to government-knows-best programs that are failing prisoners and the society into which they are released.”

Due in large part to the devastating and vastly disproportionate effects that the War on Drugs has had on low-income and minority communities, until recently the case for comprehensive criminal justice reform has primarily been advanced by members of the political left.  Although, as I have previously argued on this blog, there is really no reason why those on the right shouldn’t also be able to support ending America’s drug war, Viguerie’s larger point that conservatives ought to be furious about our bloated, ineffective and inhumane criminal justice system as a whole is an incredibly persuasive one.  Building on the work of the cleverly-titled “Right  on Crime” campaign (which supports overhauling America’s criminal justice system in the name of constitutionally limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, Christianity, and free enterprise), Viguerie contends that “conservatives known for being tough on crime should now be equally tough on failed, too-expensive criminal programs,” and should be demanding “more cost-effective approaches that enhance public safety and the well-being of all Americans.”  Similarly, given the vast number of families that have been torn apart by our overly-incarcerative criminal justice system  (not to mention today’s horrendous allegations of inmate abuse inMississippi), Viguerie’s additional contention that the sheer inhumanity of prisons should shock the conservative conscience seems equally compelling.

Fortunately, according to Viguerie, conservative lawmakers in Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, Vermont, New Hampshire, Ohio and South Dakota have already taken the lead in enacting reforms that have expanded alternatives to incarceration, reduced prison sentences for low-risk offenders, and saved taxpayers billions.  Will a conservative lawmaker here in Tennessee step up to the plate and exhibit similar leadership?  Or will our legislature continue to cower to the influence of Tennessee’s private prison lobby and give voters the false sense that we need to imprison non-violent, low-level drug offenders in order to be “tough on crime”?  Regrettably, given how many of our politicians are better  known for being corporate shills thanexhibiting any kind of political bravery, I’m sad to say that I have strong doubts that a meaningful criminal justice reform bill will make its way to Governor Haslam’s desk at any point in the near future.  In light of the growing chorus of conservative voices calling for an end to the madness of mass incarceration, however, perhaps that day won’t actually end up being so far off after all.

Daniel Horwitz is a recent graduate of Vanderbilt Law School, where he won the Damali A. Booker Award for legal and social activism and served as the Vice President of Law Students for Social Justice.  He can be contacted at daniel.a.horwitz@gmail.com.

Tennessee NORML Marijuana Education Day & Celebration April 20

For more information, follow this link.

Top Stories

War on Drugs got dumber in Tennessee

Tennessee Cops Harass Old Lady After Mistaking Buckeye Bumper Sticker for Pot Leaf Bumper Sticker

by Mike Riggs, Reason.com, Feb. 15, 2013 8:31 pm - ....Last week, the former president of the Dallas-Fort Worth Ohio State Alumni Club was pulled over in Tennessee while driving from her mother-in-law's funeral in Ohio back to Texas. The reason? Tennessee police mistook the Buckeyes sticker on her ride for a pot leaf sticker, and thought it meant she was trafficking drugs (because people do that).

Top Stories

The War on Drugs has been a catastrophe

by

Daniel Horwitz

Daniel Horwitz

As a longtime proponent of the legalization and regulation of all drugs, I’ve never quite understood how there can be near-universal consensus among Americans that prohibition of alcohol was a disastrous public policy, while the fact that the very same social ills have resulted from the prohibition of narcotics goes largely unrecognized.  Sitting in attendance last Saturday afternoon during a panel discussion of the documentary “The House I Live In,” however, I was pleasantly surprised by the panelists’ unanimous agreement that the War on Drugs, too, has been a catastrophe.  

“The War on Drugs has been a diabolical, tragic failure,” said David Baker, a Federal Public Defender here in Nashville.  “It has failed the American people in a big way,” added Mike Carpenter, Correctional Chief of Security at the Oklahoma Department of Corrections.  “Have we responded to the problem effectively?  No.  In that sense it’s absolutely a failure,” noted Assistant U.S. Attorney Alex Little.  “It’s clearly not working, and if that’s your definition of failure, then it is one,” offered Kevin Sharp, District Court Judge for the Middle District of Tennessee.

With a price tag of more than a trillion dollars, millions incarcerated, hundreds of thousands killed and countless families torn apart, one might reasonably expect that the staggering costs of America’s War on Drugs would at least have brought about comparable social benefits by this point in time, given that it now continues into its fifth decade.  If any such benefits have been realized, though, they certainly aren't readily identifiable.  As Correctional Chief Carpenter correctly observed, both access to drugs and overall rates of drug abuse have either increased or remained unchanged since PresidentNixon’s 1971 declaration of war, as have the pharmacological purity of illegal narcotics and the harm that results from their use.  Indeed, “if anything, we've made the problem worse by making the drug trade so profitable that we can't stop it,” he noted.  And all this despite the fact that opening up the drug market to legitimate businesses remains the single most powerful weapon that we can deploy to stem the tide of violence and put drug cartels and inner city gangs out of business for good.  (Why this wasn’t included among President Obama’s list of 23executive actions on gun violence reduction is completely beyond me.)  Stated differently: there is only one reason why Jack Daniel's is thriving today while the Al Capones of the world have ceased to exist, and that reason is called legalization. 
     
Beyond agreeing that the War on Drugs itself has failed, the panelists were also of the same mind in believing that politicians across the board deserve the lion’s share of the blame for perpetuating the problem.  Given the widespread appeal of the so-called “tough on crime” mantra, of course, there clearly must be something to this view.  It’s hard to ignore, for example, the fact that our last three Presidents – all of whom have acknowledged using illegal drugs themselves at one point or another – each ratcheted up the drug war in various respects during their administrations, and that even Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson (a longtime supporter of ending the War on Drugs) noticeably tamped down his anti-Drug War message during his own recent run for President.  At the local level, too, the message is largely the same.  The District Attorney who campaigns for lighter sentences for drug dealers has yet to be elected anywhere, I suspect, and even Nashville Mayor Karl Dean – himself a former Public Defender who knows better – has hardly lifted a finger to stop the bleeding caused by our city’s localized Drug War.  If John Bourque, a Police Sergeant in Nashville’s central precinct who also attended the screening, is tuned in to the fact that Nashville’s judges “see drug addicts with 100, 200, sometimes 300 drug charges on their rap sheet” rotating in and out of our city’s criminal justice system, you can be certain that Mayor Dean is aware of the problem as well. 

Despite the panelists’ unanimous belief that politicians represent the primary threat to drug reform, however, I just can’t help but feel as though the right anti-Drug War message presents a perfect opportunity for enterprising challengers on either side of the aisle.The ovation that Ron Paul received from an ultra-conservative South Carolina audience after advocating for the legalization of heroin (and all other drugs) in June of 2011 should have been instructive on this point, but portraying the drug war as an infringement upon individual liberty definitely isn’t the only option available.  Given the devastating effects that the War on Drugs has had on minority and low income communities, for example, an anti-Drug War message should theoretically be very popular among social liberals.  Indeed, with a full half a million people – most of them poor minorities – currently behind bars for non-violent drug offenses, ending the War on Drugs should properly be considered the most pressing civil rights issue of our time, and it can’t be long before Democratic primary challengers begin standing up and saying it.  Similarly, given both the staggering monetary costs of the drug war ($30,000 per inmate per year) and the ever-increasing degree to which this war has expanded government agencies from the DEA to the ATF to the Coast Guard and so on down the line to every municipal police department in the country, in theory advocates of fiscal conservatism and limited-government should be sympathetic to the cause as well.  And for those who shy away from any political ideology, at some point a variation of this one simple message should begin to carry great weight: “The War on Drugs isn't working, and it’s costing you a huge amount of money.  The next time a politician professes his or her belief in being ‘tough on crime,’ then, you would do well to remember that this really means being tough on your paycheck, without providing you any benefits in return.”

What voters don’t know about the War on Drugs, of course, continues to be a huge problem as well, and it too represents a major obstacle to reform.  That far more harm is caused by the prohibition of drugs than by drug use itself is well documented, for example, but for some reason the disconnect between the empirical data and the electorate still has yet to be bridged.  Most Tennesseans are also presumably unaware that our state arrests more than 18,000 people each year for simple possession of marijuana alone, and that increasing access to drug treatment would be an excellent way to conserve our resources.  (The rampant police abuse that drug laws have engendered in Tennessee and elsewhere is a separate problem.)  Nonetheless, I remain optimistic that sooner or later an informed electorate will dramatically shift the dialogue.  Fortunately, a particularly good illustration of this point came from the final conversation of Saturday’s panel:
“I don't know whether or not it costs more to rehabilitate someone than to lock them in prison.  I just don't,” said Sergeant Bourque, who also mentioned that he most closely identified with the Tea Party. 

“We do,” responded the moderator.  “All the empirical evidence indicates that it’s cheaper to treat someone than to incarcerate them.”  
“Then we need to convince someone to spend our money in the right place,” Sergeant Bourque responded, followed immediately by a loud chorus of applause. 

Exactly.

Daniel Horwitz is a third year law student at Vanderbilt University Law School, where he is the Vice President of Law Students for Social Justice. He can be contacted at daniel.a.horwitz@vanderbilt.edu.

Top Stories

White House calls End to War on Drugs

When you have been fighting and losing a war for over 40 years and it still looks like you are no closer to winning, it might be time to sue for peace. That is what the Obama Administration is doing. Below is a report from the Wall Street Journal:

White House Czar Calls for End to 'War on Drugs'
By GARY FIELDS
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration's new drug czar says he wants to banish the idea that the U.S. is fighting "a war on drugs," a move that would underscore a shift favoring treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce illicit drug use.

In his first interview since being confirmed to head the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske said Wednesday the bellicose analogy was a barrier to dealing with the nation's drug issues.

"Regardless of how you try to explain to people it's a war on drugs' or a 'war on a product,' people see a war as a war on them," he said. "We're not at war with people in this country." [full article]

The article goes on to say that the Obama administration has called for a change in policy that would end the discrepancy between how powder cocaine and crack cocaine are handled and also says that the federal government will no longer raid medical marijuana facilities in those 13 states where medical marijuana had been made legal.

The new Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske said that he does not support efforts to legalize drugs but favors a change in policy that would emphasize treatment rather than arrest and punishment of users. This is an encouraging development and is a good first step. I hope the administration goes much further.

The governments policy toward marijuana in particular makes absolutely no sense. For far too long many people have had their lives damaged, not by marijuana but by a policy that criminalizes a harmless activity. People lose their right to parental visitation or custody of their children, they lose their job, they lose their college scholarships, and they go to jail for simply smoking a little dope.

Casual use of marijuana is much less damaging to society than alcohol. I think marijuana may actually be good for society. If some of the people who drink alcohol switched to pot, we would probably see fewer violent brawls, less domestic violence and fewer fatal car wrecks. Some uptight people might be less uptight and more pleasant if they occasionally got stoned. I suspect the world might actually be a better place if more people got high every once in a while.

I think we should have an immediately end to federal pot prohibition and let each state decide the issue. I would hope that the several states would then end state prohibitions. Using pot should not be a crime and neither should pot users be considered to have a “drug problem.” While I would much rather see people forced into drug treatment rather than sent to jail, requiring treatment is also hypocrisy. Casual users of marijuana do not have a “drug problem.” They just have a preference for a recreational drug that is less dangerous than the society-approved recreational drug alcohol.

I think procession of small quantities or growing small quantities of marijuana for your own use should be legal much like brewing your own beer is legal. I think dealers should be licensed and taxed. The government at all levels loses a lot of money because this large segment of the economy is not taxed. If marijuana was distributed much the way alcohol and tobacco are distributed the criminal element would be driven out of business, much the same way that ending alcohol prohibition drives out bootleggers. Also, with commercial distribution of marijuana the consumer would benefit by having quality control. The consumer could expect honest weights and measures and proper labeling. I can see the day when shopping for pot could be like shopping for wine. I can imagine a weekly pot review article in the Tennessean. It should happen.

While I would not want to see an immediate legalization of all dangerous drugs, I think we should deemphasize prosecution of users of these hard drugs. For the more dangerous drugs, I think we primarily need to educate people to the dangers and then realize that sometimes free people make poor choices. Just the way that some people now abuse alcohol or people make poor financial decisions, we must accept that some people will get strung out on drugs. Help should be available for those with a drug problem who want help, but putting people in prison is not the help they need. Drug treatment would be less costly and more humane than imprisonment.

I suspect that if we end the crack down on the supply of drugs, the price would fall. Those with a real addiction would not commit armed robbery to feed their habit if drugs were less costly and less profitable and we would not enrich Mexican and Colombian drug lords. We might even deny the Taliban a major source of funding

While I have been a critic of the Obama Administration on many issues, I applaud them for this change in policy. It is past time to end the “War on Drugs.”

Top Stories

It's time for U. S. drug laws to be reformed

Sometimes a Smoke is Just a Smoke

Kathleen Parker, WASHINGTON, February 13, 2009

Drink and drive and it's grrrrrrrr-eat! Smoke pot and your flakes are frosted, dude.

So seems the message from Kellogg, which has decided not to renew its sponsorship contract with Michael Phelps after the Olympian was photographed smoking marijuana at a party in South Carolina.

In our peculiar obsession to track down the Willie Nelsons, Rush Limbaughs, and now Michael Phelpses of society -- nonviolent, victimless imbibers of drugs -- we've actually made society less safe. That's the conclusion of 10,000 cops, prosecutors, judges and others who make up the membership of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. (link)

Comment

Great article! I agree. Like Kathleen Parker, I am not convinced that all drugs should be legalized but it is time for the silliness of pot prohibition to end.

Top Stories

The Michael Phelps' Bong Hits

“Does embattled Michael Phelps Deserve a break for his indiscretions?” is the headline of an article on the Op-ed page of the Tennessean. That is also the type of question being asked on talk shows and by pundits across America. I think it is the wrong question. The question we should be asking is, “Isn’t it time to end the hypocrisy of pot prohibition?”

Olympic Swimmer Phelps got caught smoking dope. Some pundits are saying it is a teachable moment to explain to your kids that all people are flawed. Others are saying he is young and deserves a break for doing something stupid.

Was it stupid for Michael Phelps to smoke dope? Was it a forgivable indiscretion? What is the lesson? He was stupid. He was not stupid because there is anything inherently wrong with smoking a little dope but he was stupid because he risked million of dollars in earnings from product endorsements. He was stupid because he thought he was partying with friends. He was stupid because he failed to realize that he is a celebrity and cannot do what normal people do.

The lesson is that you should not get caught. The lesson is that if you do get caught you have to act like you did something wrong and ask for forgiveness.

I know the response of many to this argument is that marijuana is illegal and he should respect the law. Actually, I think a little disrespect of the law can be healthy thing. Many otherwise respectable people drank booze during prohibition. If everyone had respected the law we would still have prohibition. When the national speed limit was 55, many of us continued to drive 70. Many of the sex practices that people routinely engage in were once illegal in many of the states. It was once illegal for two unmarried people to have sex. Oral sex was illegal. Sex between people of different races was illegal. Should we have all respected the law? Sometimes the law is not worthy of respect because it is a stupid law. If everyone obeys the law it doesn’t get changed.

After getting caught Phelps had this to say: “I engaged in behaviour which was regrettable and demonstrated bad judgment. I’m 23 years old and despite the successes I’ve had in the pool, I acted in a youthful and inappropriate way, not in a manner people have come to expect from me. For this, I am sorry. I promise my fans and the public it will not happen again.”

It is unfortunate but this is the kind of groveling, hypocritical, self-serving statement one has to make if they get caught. I wish he would have said this: “I smoked a little dope at a party and don’t regret it. I regret getting caught. I regret that an activity which is relatively harmless is illegal. I am a successful athlete and enjoy a little pot from time to time. I hope that this incidents helps to dispel the myth that dope smoking is only for losers and slackers. I regret that society considers this incident newsworthy or inappropriate.”

Like Michael Phelps, William F. Buckley, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Sarah Palin and tens of millions of other Americans, I have "tried" marijuana. Unlike Buckley I tried it more than once. Unlike Bill Clinton, I did inhale. Unlike Sarah Palin, I did enjoy it. It is OK to admit that you did it at some point in the past, just don’t admit or get caught doing it in the present. I suspect that a lot of people who hold important jobs and are accomplished and responsible routinely smoke a little dope. But, they cannot say, "yeah, I like to get stoned every once in a while." They may say that in their youth they "tried" the drug, but they do not admit to currently using it. Such bullshit! Such hypocrisy.

Marijuana is a harmless drug. It is absolutely ridiculous that society continues to ruin lives and waste millions of dollars arresting and jailing people for engaging in such a harmless activity. If we had more marijuana and less alcohol the world would be a better place. Maybe, if marijuana was legal, more people would choose to get high rather than drunk. The worst thing you can say about marijuana is that it makes people have a stupid grin on their face and think that Oreo cookies are the best thing they ever tasted. People stoned on marijuana are not prone to domestic violence or barroom brawls. Stoned people find life amusing and, by and large, are easygoing and peaceful. Marijuana may be a net plus for society.

Millions of Americans routinely engage in the harmless activity of smoking pot but yet have to lie about it. Making millions of people be liars and hypocrites is the least of the things wrong with our drug policy. People really do get a police record or go to jail or lose their jobs or their scholarship or lose child visitation rights because of using marijuana.

Isn’t it time to end the hypocrisy of pot prohibition?

Top Stories