Drug-policy Office is Leading Efforts to Undermine the State's Constitutional Amendment

We live in a beautiful country where we have the right to vote - a government for the people, by the people. Naturally, we all cannot agree on everything and some laws will be passed that go against what some people believe in. The United States has been debating the legitimacy of medical marijuana on a state and federal level; states have a right to make their own laws that do not coincide with federal laws and that is where the argument starts. The 10th Amendment - Powers of the States and People was ratified 12/15/1791, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". Nowhere in the constitution does it say anything about marijuana, so states took it upon themselves to circumvent federal drug laws and exercise their individual powers. Since 1996 when medical marijuana was passed in California, federal drug agents have ignored the laws passed in the states that allow for medical marijuana.

In the last couple years public opinion about marijuana on a national level shifted and has become more accepting of the idea. President Obama has instructed the DEA to leave medical marijuana patients and growers alone as long as state laws were being adhered to. However, certain drug officials have not followed Obama's new mandate and are still pursuing legal patients. According to the Denver Post, "a Coloradan who works for the president's drug-policy office is leading efforts to undermine the state's constitutional amendment allowing cannabis for medical use. On the federal dime, Tom Gorman, director of the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program, is lobbying state lawmakers to gut the Colorado law". This really isn't so much a surprise, as it is confusing! Here is a guy who is in fact violating the most sacred of American documents, the United States Constitution and nobody seems to care. It seems strange how people can trample on the constitution in order to wage personal wars without any punishment, setting aside one's beliefs about the legitimacy of medical marijuana, at what point does the constitution stop being important? The Denver Post said it best, "Whether for or against medical marijuana, you'll probably agree that government has no business paying functionaries to work in contradiction to its own policies".

People who break the law are required to pay for it; yet, people who break the law trying to enforce the law are left alone. Tom Gorman's beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to state and federal law; we live in a democracy where we can't always have our way. Whether or not medical marijuana is just or acceptable is a question for the people in their respective states, not for one man with passion; this is a republic of laws not people. If the Constitution is not upheld in this country than we are lost, it is the glue that holds America together.

The War on Drugs has Been a Total Failure

The world is beginning to look at drugs in a new way; we rest at the precipice of a revolution in drug legislation. More countries than ever are in agreement that the war on drugs has been a total failure creating an unstoppable monster. There is no question as to whether or not drugs play a huge role in the destruction of lives; the way in which drug offenders are policed and treated like second class citizens plays an even more devastating part. The best defense against drug addiction is education and the best defense against traffickers is less demand. Heavy fines and imprisonment only throw fuel on an already out of control fire. The argument that drugs are bad for you and that punishment is the only solution is not holding as much water as it once did. Countries around the world are focusing less on policing drug use; more emphasis is being placed on regulation and education.

Basically, it works like this: the illegal nature of drugs has caused the price of drugs to increase to the point where an addict needs to be rich to afford their addiction, addicts are forced to commit criminal acts like robbery and prostitution in order to compensate for their lack of inheritance, addicts break the law while getting high and they break the law while acquiring the money to afford the high. It's a vicious circle that usually ends tragically; the war on drugs has created a vacuum that traps addicts into a life where the only option is death or jail. I read an interesting article by Chris Middendorp who writes for the Sydney Morning Herald. Dealing with the subject, he made a good point: this is not about morals or laws, but, the overall welfare of human beings that should be the focus. "In several Latin American countries and in mainland Europe, legislators have already brought about significant reforms in drug policy in recent times. This has not involved an open-slather legalisation of drugs, but the decriminalisation of personal possession and use. Most famously, in 2001 Portugal decriminalised all drugs - from heroin to cocaine - and, to many people's surprise, overall drug use actually fell. In Switzerland, giving addicts free heroin in supervised clinics has been deemed a success, with begging, prostitution, homelessness and burglary all dropping dramatically. A national referendum in 2008 voted overwhelmingly to retain the program, which began as a trial in 1994".

America is on the verge of joining the mindset that the drugs are not the problem - we are. If money that was spent on policing drugs was diverted towards regulation and education it would be a big step forward. Not to mention that that is the only way we will ever deal a severe blow upon the drug cartels. Obama realizes that the war on drugs has been a failure and that we need to handle this differently; this could change everything, for years the USA has set many trends worldwide as far as a zero tolerance on drugs goes. If the United States takes a different route than many other countries would follow.

Obama Drops a Long-standing Ban on Federal Funding of Needle Exchange Programs

Significant progress has been made in the battle against diseases spread intravenously. It has been an ongoing struggle to provide I.V. drug users the ability to acquire clean needles. In many cases people in metropolitan areas are typically hit hard by A.I.D.S and Hepatitis C because of the lack of needle exchanges and the need of a prescription to get needles from a pharmacy; despite the fact that there are detailed studies proving that cities that implement needle exchange programs have less people contracting diseases. In a 2007 report conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, about 424,000 Americans a year over age 12 inject illegal drugs. "The omnibus appropriations bill that President Obama signed last week drops a long-standing ban on federal funding of needle exchange programs. And the Pennsylvania State Board of Pharmacy three months ago lifted the requirement for a prescription to buy syringes at a pharmacy, leaving New Jersey and Delaware as the only states still requiring a script", according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. Now, needle exchange programs can apply for funding from AIDS prevention programs which will certainly increase the amount of exchanges available.

This is a great step and it shows that people are beginning to understand the complex nature of addiction and how is affects all aspects of society. A person in the grips of their addiction will find a way to use no matter what; a dirty needle will do the same job as a clean needle. Providing addicts the ability to use without the risk of disease is a big step, it reflects the idea that the addict is not by default a criminal, but rather, a sick individual. Between 2002 and 2004 when comparing Newark NJ where exchanges were not present and you needed a prescription to acquire syringes, with New York City where both were present, "Rates of HIV were 26 percent in Newark vs. 5 percent in New York; hepatitis B, 70 percent vs. 27 percent; and hepatitis C, 82 percent vs. 53 percent", the Journal of Urban Health reported.

Changes like this one are a huge leap forward for those who have been trying to provide a safe way for those who will get high no matter what. It will also afford counselors the opportunity to help steer people going to the exchanges towards treatment; addicts who normally would be impossible to contact will now be close enough to potentially reach and get them the help that they desperately need.

The First Marijuana Coffee Shop Opens In America

The first marijuana coffee shop opens in America which will inevitably be one of the first tests Obama faces after announcing a relaxed approach against marijuana. Marijuana cafes have been operated in Europe for many years rather successfully; it will be interesting to see how this new cafe will be received by the public. The Cannabis Cafe in Portland, Oregon is the first place medical marijuana patients in Oregon can get their marijuana and smoke it as long as it is out of public view. Unlike California, there are no medical marijuana dispensaries in Oregon where patients can get their medicine, forcing them to grow it themselves or know someone who is growing it. The new cafe in Portland is a big move in America, what happens in Oregon could trickle down and affect other states; neighboring states will probably be setting up cafes in the near future if Oregon's attempt at it is a success.

According to the Telegraph(UK): "Madeline Martinez, who runs NORML, a group seeking legalisation of the drug, said: "This club represents personal freedom, finally. 'We hope to have classes, seminars, even a cannabis community college, based here to help people learn about growing and other uses for cannabis'". A month ago the Obama administration told federal lawyers, with regard to medical marijuana patients and dispensaries, not to prosecute in those states which have permitted medical use. In the state of Oregon there are 21,000 medical marijuana patients compared to the staggering 150,000 in California. California, legalized medical marijuana in 1996, since then, another 12 states including Oregon followed suit.

With each day that passes it appears that America's view on marijuana echoes Europe's more and more. The way things are going it does not seem like there will be any distinction before long. I think we need to remember that marijuana is still an addictive illegal drug and can have the ability to have an adverse affect on your life. The more the United States accepts medical marijuana the more it will accept its use in general - prescribed or not. Medical marijuana may be a progressive movement for the United States and in the end may be the right thing; but, we dare not forget that just because it becomes recognized as a medicine does not mean that it's not an addictive drug and needs to be monitored.

Are Addictive Drugs Legal in America?

It appears that the United States has become much more permissive of illegal drug use unlike never before. Many people are confused, and are asking, "are addictive drugs legal in America?"Across the world jails are filled to the max, economies have gone into recession, and a war on drugs with no end in sight continues to be fought. In the United States, the Obama administration has recently announced that registered cannabis dispensaries will no longer be raided by federal authorities; this is a pretty big deal considering that Marijuana is still classified as an illegal drug. Just about anywhere you go in the western United States you can see the marijuana trend exploding; more and more states are accepting or considering Marijuana as a legitimate medicine. The hope is that relaxed marijuana laws in the U.S. will have a heavy toll on the Mexican cartels. Cartels make most of their money from trafficking and selling marijuana.

The trend is happening all over the world, countries are not looking at drugs in the same way they once did. Governments are relaxing their laws regarding many different substances. The Economists reports that, "from heroin 'shooting galleries' in Vancouver to Mexico's decriminalization of personal possession of drugs, the Americas are suddenly looking more permissive. Meanwhile in Europe, where drugs policy is generally less stringent, seven countries have decriminalized drug possession, and the rest are increasingly ignoring their supposedly harsh regimes. Is the 'war on drugs' becoming a fiction?" This goes beyond just medical marijuana; many states are considering full on legalization of marijuana and are having serious discussions about it.

It appears to be a new era all over the world regarding the war on drugs. I have to wonder if we are being too hasty, many countries are trying to determine how all narcotics from cannabis to crack can be regulated. There needs to be a limit to all the legalization talk and we need to remember that drugs ruin people's lives and if they are not monitored appropriately then there will be chaos. There is certainly a problem with drug policy throughout the world, but, how we alter those policies needs to be done carefully.

Obama Administration Issues New Policy On Medical Marijuana

The marijuana question and the argument of legalization made a huge stride today in Washington. It seems as though every passing month brings new developments that are in favor of legalization; if people are following state law then they are relatively free of any federal punishment. Obama administration issues new policy on medical marijuana. "The Obama administration delivered new guidance on medical marijuana to federal prosecutors Monday, signaling a broad policy shift that will mean fewer crackdowns against dispensaries and the people who use them", according to the Washington Post. The idea is that federal prosecutors should focus on those growers who exploit state law and traffic drugs behind the veil of medical marijuana.

"It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana, but we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal", said Attorney General Eric Holder. Obama's new policy raises a lot of questions about what kind of good will come of it; on one hand, every plant grown legally in the U.S. is another dollar that Mexican Cartels cannot get there hands on to fund their war. Obviously, taking money from the cartels is a good thing and may reduce the number of murders that happen everyday along the border. There are those who argue that giving addicts the ability to grow marijuana without the fear of punishment may increase addiction rates throughout the country.

Only time will tell whether the new policy will do more harm than good and there seems to be more people in favor of medical legalization then there are against it. The Mexican cartels should be the main focus of federal agents due to the violence that goes along with their business. the Washington Post reported that, "Tom Angell, a spokesman for the advocacy group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, said in an e-mail message that the shift appears to be a "major step" in the right direction". The new development in Washington is in no way an all out legalization of the drug, rather, it is simply put in place to guide investigators toward the more important cases where serious laws are being broken. What is the right answer in all of this remains unclear because the new policy has yet to be put to the test. Is less crime and more addiction the right path to take?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Abolish the Disparity Between Penalties for Powder and Crack Cocaine

President Obama pledged in his campaign to abolish the disparity between penalties for powder and crack cocaine. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress now agree that crack sentencing rules need to be altered; and this may be the year that ball starts rolling in Congress. The idea that powder cocaine is safer than crack cocaine is a simply wrong, since 1986 the "100-to-1" drug ratio rule has been in place. This rule has been responsible for judges dealing extreme sentences for over 20 years, no second chances or opportunities for those convicted of selling or possession of crack. Unfair is the only word that can be used for the disparity between crack and powder cocaine. Naturally, drug dealers should serve time for their actions, but, the 100-to-1 rule is unjust and needs to be reformed as soon as possible.

According to Time.com "the mechanism is known as the "100-to-1 drug ratio," which gives crack cocaine 100 times the weight of powder cocaine. Under the ratio, a person convicted of selling five grams of crack — about the weight of a teaspoon of salt — triggers the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence as a person convicted of selling 500 grams of powder cocaine, roughly the weight of a loaf of bread. Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer believes that something needs to be done about the unfairness in the Judicial system. "The criminal-justice system must be fair, and it must be perceived as being fair," Breuer says. "The 100-to-1 ratio between crack and powder is perhaps the single worst symbol of unfairness in the system. There really is no longer any basis for it." Reforming punishment is something that has been long overdue and it is great that people are wising up to the fact that there should not be discrepancies in punishment between cocaine powder and crack cocaine.

There is another aspect of this story that needs to be addressed regarding the Department of Justice not taking a position on retroactivity, but, Breuer says the issue is "being looked at hard". Doing away with the "100-to-1" rule would be a great move in making a fairer justice system; however, if the retroactive sentencing is not granted it would leave a lot of people already serving lengthy sentences in the same position. Mary Price, vice president and general counsel of Families Against Mandatory Minimums said "it would be cruelly ironic not to make that change available to the very people whose cases led our lawmakers to make this decision".

If old laws are smashed and new laws are formed, those new laws should trickle down to everyone regardless of when they were sentenced. The "100-to-1" rule was not fair to begin with and getting rid of it would lose its value if retroactivity is not a concern when passing new laws. If the justice system is only fair for some people then it is not fair for anyone and that is unacceptable; exceptions and exclusions should not have a place in the Judicial system with regard to people that were punished for the same crime but given different sentences. Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, a Washington-based reform group, asks: "If we've been doing something that's unfair for 23 years now, don't we have an obligation to address that unfairness?"