Medical Marijuana Must Be Legalized — Now!

THE FEDS REMAIN IN DENIAL ABOUT CANNABIS’S MEDICINAL VALUE, CHOOSING INSTEAD TO CLING TO MYTHS PERPETUATED OVER SIX DECADES AGO!

By Glenn S. Reiner

NEXT TO PROHIBITION — which the government obviously learned little from — perhaps the most bizarre law on the books in the U.S. deals with the criminalization of marijuana, which has been predicated on complete falsehoods for the past 72 years.

Just a little history: In 1936, the Treasury Department created the Federal Bureau of Narcotics under the leadership of Harry J. Anslinger. The new bureau chief initially had no problem with cannabis consumption, which had been going on for over five millenniums.

Then a group of religious fanatics,  similar to those who inspired Prohibition, ran a propaganda campaign about the herb which finally got to him.

Anslinger eventually convinced Congress to pass the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, which required the purchase tax stamps in order to legally possess the herb.

But in order to get the stamp, a user had establish possession of it,  which led to their arrests for not having the stamp. It was one of the most imbecilic Catch 22s of all time.

In order to convince Congress and the public of  marijuana’s ‘horrors,’ the bureau launched a propaganda campaign with a few movies entirely underscored by hyperbole. The most ludicrous, yet effective, Reefer Madness (1936), depicted pot-smoking college students as a bunch of drunken speed freaks. If you never had the chance to see  it, it could be viewed for free at

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6696582420128930236.

After the liberal Earl Warren Supreme Court overturned the absurd law 40 years later, then President Richard Nixon enacted a new bill prohibiting possession of cannabis in any quantity within 36 months as a component of the more comprehensive Controlled Substance Act of 1970.

Generally speaking, it is extremely difficult to change the belief system of narrow-minded individuals, which the federal and state governments have historically had more of its fair share of.

A few states have decriminalized possession of small quantities of marijuana, while 12 have legalized it for medical use. But the rest refuse to even look at recent medical findings, and the federal government could still prosecute you if the states won’t.

This occurred earlier this year in Los Angeles where the DEA busted several medical marijuana stores , despite those outlets were completely legal and sanctioned by the State of California. The agency has even gone as far as to threaten doctors who prescribe it with prosecution and removal of their licenses.

“Marijuana has been a medicine for 5,000 years,” says Dr. Donald I. Abrams “That’s a lot longer than it hasn’t been a medicine.”

Abrams,  an oncologist and director of clinical research programs at the Osher Center for Integrative Medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine in San Francisco, is one of a handful of top-flight doctors in the country researching medical marijuana.

“The war on drugs is really a war on patients,” he asserts.

What is truly bothersome is the federal government’s sanction of alcohol and tobacco consumption, and it has  made a mint on the these two deadly substances with exorbitant taxes. Yet, it refuses to even look at the data that establishes pot as far less toxic.

To paraphrase political comedian and satirist Bill Maher, ‘There are nearly a half-million tobacco-related deaths each year and approximately 100,000 fatalities caused by alcohol consumption. But we have yet to see one person smoke a joint and drop dead.’

If there’s one lesson we should have learned from Prohibition, it’s that morality cannot be legislated! When alcohol was banned, the result was devastating: organized crime took over the trade, the product had far more toxic components in the bootlegged version, and underground speakeasys spread like the flu.

The result of the cannabis laws has proven to be quite similar, as millions have been busted and imprisoned since 1970. Consequently, several more prisons have been built to handle the exponentially larger inmate population.

This has led the states and federal government to spend an exorbitant amount of money, which could have been used for legitimate necessities: our infrastructure, an increase in police, more comprehensive health care — not to mention improved education for our kids — which has absolutely gone down the toilet for the last few decades.

If legalized, marijuana — most notably for medical purposes — could be controlled by the government, who can regulate the product and price while increasing revenue through taxes. In any event, the consumer would be paying far less than he/she current does at black market prices for a safer product.

So its easy to see that the natural herb’s criminalization has proven to be a total failure. It’s high time (no pun intended) for the government to realize this.

 

Defiant Governor Drops Bombshell

ONE THING CAN BE SAID FOR IL GOV. ROD BLAGOJEVICH: HE DOES HAVE GUTS OF STEEL!

 

By Glenn S. Reiner

NO ONE WILL EVER ACCUSE Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich of buckling under pressure. No matter how you feel about him, you have to give the man his due.

He offered proof positive again today announcing to a national televised audience his appointment of former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris to replace President-elect Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate.

I have to admit I feel quite ambivalent about the governor’s current legal and political issues. While I’m sure his ploy to sell the president-elect’s Senate seat is a clearly-defined ethics violation, I don’t honestly believe he has committed a crime. And I am not ready to convict him quite yet, not at least until I can completely examine all the facts, as well as the case law as it pertains to his actions.

So just what are the facts?

Well, for one thing, they haven’t even been presented yet in their entirety to a trial judge and jury. Like you, all I know is what U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has disclosed to the media.

I have no idea what the governor’s defense is, which his attorneys smartly won’t reveal until the government takes their client to trial, following a full disclosure of its entire case to them beforehand. That hasn’t happened yet.

So in truth, we don’t know all the facts — only a portion of them.

With respect to case law, the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides Blagojevich with the same presumption of innocence until guilt is proven that you and I are entitled to.

Therefore, I have to honor the man’s constitutional rights and wait until, and if, his case goes to court.

The wire-tap tapes released to the press by Fitzgerald clearly establishes Blagojevich sought money and future favors  in exchange for Obama’s seat. But I don’t believe this, on its face, violates federal law.

What the tapes do not establish is the governor following up on his rhetoric and actually committing the act, which would no doubt be illegal.

Let me offer an analogy:  When a drug dealer offers to make a sale to an undercover cop, he hasn’t yet committed a crime and cannot be arrested. It’s only when  he actually exchanges the dope for cash that the officer can slap the cuffs on him.

Another good comparison is when a married person attempts to hire a hit man to off their spouse but ends up with an undercover homicide detective instead. Before the detective could legally arrest that person, he has to ask them, “Are you sure you really want to go through with this?” In fact, many ask twice. If the person changes their mind and no money has been exchanged, charges cannot be filed.

Therefore as current governor of the great state of Illinois, Blagojevich – until convicted or extricated from office by the Illinois legislature — has every legal right to carry out the responsibilities of his office. This includes the Senate seat appointment.

“The people of Illinois are entitled to have two United States senators represent them in Washington, D.C. As governor, I am required to make this appointment. If I don’t make this appointment, then the people of Illinois will be deprived of their appropriate voice and vote in the United States Senate,” Blagojevich said at today’s press conference.

And he’s 100 percent on the money as far as I’m concerned. Not only are Illinois citizens entitled to two senators when the new Congress convenes in less than a week, but the Senate Democrats deserve to be fully staffed as well when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid commences the new Senate.

In all fairness, I believe the governor made a very intelligent choice in the notably rational and political squeaky-clean Burris, who apparently has all the makings of the perfect successor to Obama.

“Very, very low key,” said Don Rose, a former Democratic political consultant in Chicago, describing Mr. Burris, 71, to the New York Times. He’s just not a terribly exciting figure. But there’s never been a breath of scandal about him.”

Democratic Senators can threaten to block Burris from taking being seated all they want, but that would be unconstitutional.

I sincerely doubt there is a federal judge in this country, at any level, who would side against the currently sitting governor. And the Eighth Amendment leaves absolutely no room for partisan judicial interpretation.

To do so, would violate the oath that judge took to “uphold, protect and defend the constitution” — subjecting him/her to possible impeachment and subsequent removal from the bench.

_________

On January 15, 2008, Roland Burris was admitted into the U.S. Senate with the blessings of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durban, Illinois’ senior senator — filling Barack Obama’s vacated seat.

 

Was Scott Peterson Railroaded?

PETERSON IS HOUSED HERE ON SAN QUENTIN’S DEATH ROW

By Glenn S. Reiner

I HAVE HAD REASONABLE DOUBT about Scott Peterson’s guilt from the very start, as — for more than one reason — this judicial equation just doesn’t balance out!

Although there are exceptions, data has steadily shown violent criminals are the product of  abusive homes, broken family’s, and the most impoverished of neighborhoods. Peterson, conversely, grew up in a loving, upper middle-class family.

An educated, articulate man, he was no imbecile. If he wanted his wife out of the way to pursue a life with Amber Frey, why didn’t he just get a divorce? That would have been a far  simpler, easier and civilized way out.

His dishonesty with his wife about his affair with Frey and with Frey about his wife was not unusual, as this is quite common among cheating spouses. So was his inability to level with police. Modesto, CA, is  a small conservative town where morality is heavily weighed, and I believe Peterson was just merely trying to protect his reputation with the Christian majority.

I have always said if I was ever falsely accused of a crime, I would ask for a bench trial, as I don’t trust the average American juror’s ability to be objective. Time and again, we have seen them so easily swayed by their own personal values and emotional appeals from prosecutors.

There is an old saying in many law schools: “If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you don’t have the facts on your side but have the law on your side, pound the law. But if you don’t have the facts or the law on your side, pound the table.”

And this is what I believe the DA successfully did with Peterson’s jury.

Again, jurors tend to allow the emotional attorney outbursts of trial lawyers, as well as the defendants’ character flaws, influence their decisions. This certainly explains why many people have been convicted of crimes they didn’t commit and several exonerated of crimes they clearly did.

But a judge is a professional jurist and is bound to only consider the facts and law. He/she is seldom impressed by the emotional antics of the attorneys. They generally read the trial transcript before rendering a decision.

When testimony or an attorney’s inappropriate questions or comments are removed from the record, they honor that. What they heard doesn’t matter, only what they read and the law.

So my question still remains this: Was Peterson truly guilty or just railroaded by a jury convinced by circumstantial evidence along with his adulterous behavior.

And it is only fair to note why the DA asked for the death penalty. Peterson was accused of multiple murder, which — in California — is considered the “special circumstances” necessary for Capital Murder.

But one alleged victim was his unborn son — the operative word being UNBORN!

Can you smell the filthy hand of the Religious Right here? Although they believe life begins at conception, the American Medical Association and our legal system disagree.

Consequently, Peterson’s attorneys will most likely have his death sentence overturned on appeal.

This is why I sincerely doubt he will spend too many more of his days on death row. Plus, the public tide on capital punishment is changing rapidly.

Other states have already either eliminated their death penalty or are the process of doing so. And with California’s current budget woes, coupled with the lack of executions that actually have taken place there, I believe capital punishment in the “Golden State” will become moot within the next two years.

 

DEJA VU: THREE NY COPS INDICTED FOR SODOMY

SOME POLICE OFFICERS ARE AS PSYCHOPATHIC AS THE CRIMINALS THEY PURSUE.

By Glenn S. Reiner

I STRONGLY BELIEVE in the old saying: “One who doesn’t learn from history is doomed to repeat it.”

This adage has been confirmed once more by three NYPD officers, who are currently being prosecuted for the alleged sodomy of  a tattoo artist they arrested in October.

The cops chased the man, who they believed was smoking pot,  into a subway station. According to the alleged victim, they handcuffed him and pulled down his pants. One of the officers, he said, sodomized him with the antenna of a hand-held radio while he screamed. Last week, a grand jury handed down an indictment on all three.

I honestly wish this alleged heinous crime was unprecedented — especially in  New York, where I was born and raised — but that is not the case.

Who can ever forget the Abner Louima atrocity in 1997, when the Haitian immigrant visited a popular nightclub in Brooklyn. Hours later, he and several others attempted to break up a fight between two women.

Several cops showed up and a confrontation between them and customers, as well as bystanders, occurred outside the club. One officer thought he was sucker-punched by Louima and arrested him.

The arresting officers beat Louima with their fists, nightsticks, and hand-held police radios while transporting him to the 70th precinct, which protected me during my childhood and whose cops I respected and adored.

Shortly after their arrival, the cops once more beat the Haitian again in a bathroom. Then one officer kicked him in the testicles, squeezed them and then sodomized him with a broomstick.

Adding insult to injury, the cop then led him through the precinct, forced to hold the broomstick – full of blood and excrement – proudly showing off how he had taught him a lesson.

Louima suffered major internal injuries to his colon and bladder that required several operations to repair.

The sociopathic rapist cop was eventually sentenced in Federal Court to 30 years without parole for violating Louima’s civil rights, obstruction of justice and making false statements to police. One of his co-conspirators received a five-year sentence for perjury. Three other NYPD officers were indicted but exonerated for their involvement in trying to cover up the assault.

Have you ever noticed how roughly 95 percent of all police brutality victims are Black? What does that tell us about these brutal cops?

I have always been a student and strong advocate of the Constitution. I believe in the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven in a court of law.

All too often, a person is convicted by the media before he/she is even arraigned or indicted. I avoid any assessments on that basis. Until the evidence is presented in front of a judge, I can’t come to an informed conclusion.

Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]–>Kings County (Brooklyn) District Attorney Charles Hynese has an extremely difficult job with a constant overabundance of cases. He is not the type to prosecute a felony unless he feels extremely confident in winning. He can’t afford to do otherwise, like the DA’s in other boroughs of the Big Apple.

Don’t misunderstand me; I believe 95 percent of the nation’s police are terrific in doing a high-pressured, extremely difficult job which requires them to put their lives on the line every day. My experiences with them have generally been very positive and uplifting.

But I detest rogue cops and strongly believe they are hired because of vague psychological screening. Do you honestly believe that a written exam and 15 minutes with a busy shrink is sufficient to get the job done properly?

I contend it’s time for the federal and state governments to mandate all police departments in the country to do an expansive check on potential officers, this way more competently weeding out candidates who possess the same psychopathy as criminals.

There is only one way to get this accomplished: We all get on the horn with the offices of both our congressmen/women and senators — TODAY! We also should contact our state legislators, who are generally much more available. It wouldn’t hurt either to spread the word to our friends, family and co-workers.

This proposal also needs to shared with the nation’s major publications and cable news outlets (with the exception of the Fox News (Nazi) Channel, which is so far to the right politically, it is off the pavement). Progressive news outlets are always willing to apply the heat to law makers. A quality journalist is always looking for the type of story that could evoke change, improving the quality of our society

This is clearly the case here!

Deterrent Justification For Death Penalty A Total Fallacy!

THE U.S. REMAINS THE ONLY WESTERN INDUSTRIALIZED NATION WITH THE DEATH PENALTY!

By Glenn S. Reiner

THERE’S NO DARK SECRET how much I detest capital punishment. After 55 years, I still can’t perceive how it is rational, justified or the practice of the allegedly “most civilized nation on Earth.”

The U.S. is the only modern Western industrialized nation on earth to still employ it. The last execution in Europe took place over 30 years ago. This leaves us in the company of barbaric third-world countries, which includes all the Muslim theocracies.

What amazes me most is how the Bible Belt states (including Texas) — where Evangelical Christianity reigns supreme — executes the most amount of  death row inmates. For some reason, I fail to see the spiritual component behind state-sanctioned murder.

I have fought with advocates of capital punishment for years, listening to their feeble justifications. But none has been more bizarre — and clearly rebutted with actually statistics — than the deterrent argument.

I can remember my father voting against New York’s three-term beloved governor, Mario Cuomo, who vetoed every piece of death penalty legislation that crossed his desk for 12 years.

Along with the majority of New Yorkers, my father replaced Cuomo with a Republican who ran solely on reinstating this heinous practice.

So what happened? The death penalty was reinstated, then declared unconstitutional by the state’s Court of Appeals — the highest court in the Empire State — before a single execution took place.

Following the the justices lead, the state legislature refused to even consider writing another bill, even one that would have met court’s criteria.

Meanwhile, all those working class people in New York who made George Pataki governor watched helplessly as cut necessary state funding from the cities, resulting in the loss of vital services.

Today, we have indisputable proof the murder rate in states without the death penalty is actually lower (per capita) than those that have it. actually have significantly lower murder rates (per capita).

“States with the death penalty have consistently had higher murder rates than states without the death penalty.  If the death penalty was acting as a deterrent to murder, one might expect that the gap between these two groups would lessen over a long period of time as states using the death penalty obtained an advantage in reducing murders,” according to the Death Penalty Information Center, a watchdog group opposed to capital punishment.

“However, the gap has grown larger over the past 18 years. In 2007, states with the death penalty had a 42% higher murder rate than states without the death penalty.”

A murder rate is determined by dividing the number of murders in a state by the state’s population. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, the murder rate for states with the death penalty last year was 5.83, while those without it was only 4.10. The national murder rate in 2007 was 5.6.

But the death mongers don’t want to hear about it.

Is it possible that capital punishment states have created a self-fulfilling prophecy? Based on results, it would clearly seem so!

Former San Quentin Warden: Capital Punishment ‘Dead’ Wrong!

Former San Quentin Warden Jeanne Woolford Had To Preside Over Four Executions. She has become a strong advocate for the death penalty’s elimination.

By Glenn S. Reiner

I HAVE BEEN a life-long opponent of the death penalty. With each growing day, my convictions about this heinous practice have become stronger and more reinforced through my research and the data.

As scholars continually note,  we the only remaining country of the Western industrialize nations to have not outlawed Capital Punishment — which puts us in the company of third world societies, not to mention Islamic theocracies like Iran!

It’s sad enough the U.S. — once the world’s leader in so many areas — has fallen behind most of our European allies. And it is an embarrassment the Communist China has become our main lender.

The eight years of Bush/Cheney just about destroyed our image worldwide. Now, President Barrack Obama has begun taking steps to restore it. One way that would help along those lines is to convince Congress to eliminate the death penalty once and for all.

The following is a contribution to the L.A. Times Op-Ed page by a former San Quentin warden who had the abysmal task of facilitating a few executi0ns in the notorious California prison. The piece deals with  deals with two vital questions:

- Do executions make our society safer?

- Couldn’t the millions spent on them each year — especially and ironically in the Pro-Life, Bible Belt states — be put to better use, including the early treatment of child abuse that clearly leads to the development of murderers years later?

By Jeanne Woodford

As the warden of San Quentin, I presided over four executions. After each one, someone on the staff would ask, “Is the world safer because of what we did tonight?”

We knew the answer: No.

I worked in corrections for 30 years, starting as a correctional officer and working my way up to warden at San Quentin and then on to the top job in the state — director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. During those years, I came to believe that the death penalty should be replaced with life without the possibility of parole.

I didn’t reach that conclusion because I’m soft on crime. My No. 1 concern is public safety. I want my children and grandchildren to have the safety and freedom to pursue their dreams. I know from firsthand experience that some people are dangerous and must be removed from society forever — people such as Robert Lee Massie.

I presided over Massie’s execution in 2001. He was first sentenced to death for the 1965 murder of a mother of two. But when executions were temporarily banned in 1972, his sentence was changed to one that would allow parole, and he was released in 1978. Months later, he killed a 61-year-old liquor store owner and was returned to death row.

For supporters of the death penalty, Massie is a poster child. Yet for me, he stands out among the executions I presided over as the strongest example of how empty and futile the act of execution is.

I remember that night clearly. It was March 27, 2001. I was the last person to talk to Massie before he died. After that, I brought the witnesses in. I looked at the clock to make sure it was after midnight. I got a signal from two members of my staff who were on the phone with the state Supreme Court and the U.S. attorney general’s office to make sure there were no last-minute legal impediments to the execution. There were none, so I gave the order to
proceed. It took several minutes for the lethal injections to take effect.

I did my job, but I don’t believe it was the right thing to have done. We should have condemned Massie to permanent imprisonment — that would have made the world safer. But on the night we executed him, when the question was asked, “Did this make the world safer?” the answer remained no. Massie needed to be kept away from society, but we did not need to kill him.

Why should we pay to keep him locked up for life? I hear that question constantly. Few people know the answer: It’s cheaper — much, much cheaper than execution.

I wish the public knew how much the death penalty affects their wallets. California spends an additional $117 million each year pursuing the execution of those on death row. Just housing inmates on death row costs an additional $90,000 per prisoner per year above what it would cost to house them with the general prison population.

A statewide, bipartisan commission recently concluded that we must spend $100 million more each year to fix the many problems with capital punishment in California. Total price tag: in excess of $200 million-a-year more than simply condemning people to life without the possibility of parole.

If we condemn the worst offenders, like Massie, to permanent imprisonment, resources now spent on the death penalty could be used to investigate unsolved homicides, modernize crime labs and expand effective violence prevention programs, especially in at-risk communities. The money also could be used to intervene in the lives of children at risk and to invest in their education – to stop future victimization.

As I presided over Massie’s execution, I thought about the abuse and neglect he endured as a child in the foster care system. We failed to keep him safe, and our failure contributed to who he was as an adult. Instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to kill him, what if we spent that money on other foster children so that we stop producing men like Massie in the first place?

As director of corrections, I visited Watts and met with some ex-offenders. I learned that the prison system is paroling 300 people every week into the neighborhood without a plan or resources for success. How can we continue to spend more than $100 million a year seeking the execution of a handful of offenders while we fail to meet the basic safety needs of communities like Watts?

It is not realistic to think that Watts and neighborhoods like it will ever get well if we can’t — or won’t — support them in addressing the problems they face.

To say that I have regrets about my involvement in the death penalty is to let myself off the hook too easily. To take a life in order to prove how much we value another life does not strengthen our society. It is a public policy that devalues our very being and detracts crucial resources from programs that could truly make our communities safe.