|
|
| NORML's Weekly News Bulletin -- January 27, 2005 |
|
Posted by CN Staff on January 27, 2005 at 14:30:00 PT Weekly Press Release Source: NORML 
Justice Department Won't Defend Congress' Ban On Transit Ads Promoting Marijuana Law ReformJanuary 27, 2005 - Washington, DC, USA Washington, DC: The US Department of Justice announced this week that it will not appeal a 2004 US District Court ruling striking down a Congressional ban on the display of pro-drug law reform advertisements in public transit systems. The 2004 ruling held that the law, which sought to withhold federal funds from any transit agency that "is involved directly or indirectly in any activity ... that promotes the legalization or medical use" of marijuana or other drugs, unconstitutionally infringes upon free speech. US Solicitor General Paul Clement wrote in a letter to Congress, "The government does not have a viable argument to advance in the statute's defense and will not appeal the district court's decision holding the provision as currently drafted [is] unconstitutional." NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre said the Justice Department acted reasonably in refusing to defend the ban, but rebuked "those in Congress who supported such a blatantly unconstitutional law in their zeal to stifle any legitimate debate regarding America's misguided drug policies." For more information, please contact Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director, at (202) 483-5500. DL: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6417 Marijuana Ads Loses Justice Department Support Justice Department Refuses to Defend Congress Groups Display Marijuana Policy Ads in D.C. Supreme Court Rules Random Drug Dog Sniffs Constitutional January 27, 2005 - Washington, DC, USA Washington, DC: A police officer's use of a drug dog to sniff for the presence of illicit drugs during a lawful traffic stop is constitutionally permissible, even if there are no specific or articulable facts to suggest drug activity, according to a 6-2 ruling by the US Supreme Court on Monday. The ruling reverses an Illinois Supreme Court decision that held that the use of a drug dog during a traffic stop without articulable suspicion of drug activity violates Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches by the state. The case before the court involved Roy Cabelles, who was pulled over on an Illinois highway for driving six miles above the posted speed limit. During the course of the traffic stop, a second police officer from the state's Drug Interdiction Team arrived and proceeded to walk a drug-sniffing dog around Cabelles' car. The drug dog alerted officers to the trunk of Cabelles' car. Police subsequently searched the trunk and found marijuana. "A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. He added: "Official conduct that does not 'compromise any legitimate interest of privacy' is not a search to the Fourth Amendment. We have held that any interest in possessing contraband cannot be deemed 'legitimate,' and thus, governmental conduct that only reveals the possession of contraband 'comprises no legitimate privacy interest.'" Had the drug sniff unreasonably prolonged Cabelles' traffic stop, Stevens opined that he would have likely held the conduct to have been unlawful. Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg each issued separate dissenting opinions. Justice Souter wrote that the use of a drug dog constitutes a limited search because dogs are fallible and may routinely alert police officers to conduct searches of private property where no contraband is present. "The infallible drug dog ... is a creature of legal fiction," he wrote. "[I]n practice the government's use of a trained narcotics dog functions as a limited search to reveal undisclosed facts about private enclosures, to be used to justify a further and complete search of the enclosed area. ... Since the police had no indication of illegal activity beyond the speed of the car in this case, the sniff search should be held unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and its fruits should be suppressed." Justice Ginsburg opined that the use of a drug sniffing dog absent of any specific suspicions of drug trafficking is unconstitutional because it's unrelated to the circumstances which justified the initial police contact. "The sniff surely broadened the scope of the traffic-violation-related seizure," she wrote. "Today's decision ... clears the way for suspicionless, dog-accompanied drug sweeps of parked cars along sidewalks and in parking lots." For more information, please contact either Allen St. Pierre or Keith Stroup of NORML at (202) 483-5500. The Supreme Court's decision in the case, Illinois v. Caballes, is available online at: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04slipopinion.html DL: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6416 Prepare for Life in a Police State Justices Uphold Use of Drug-Sniffing Dogs Court OKs Use of Drug-Sniffing Dogs Court OKs Dog Sniff During Traffic Stop Moderate Use Of Cannabis "Safe," Study Says January 27, 2005 - Oxford, United Kingdom Oxford, United Kingdom: Moderate cannabis use, even long-term, is "relatively safe" when compared to the health effects of other recreational intoxicants, according to a scientific review published in the February issue of the journal Current Opinion in Pharmacology. "A review of the literature suggests that the majority of cannabis users, who use the drug occasionally rather than on a daily basis, will not suffer any lasting physical or mental harm," writes the study's author, Dr. Leslie Iversen of the University of Oxford. "Overall, by comparison with other drugs used mainly for 'recreational' purposes, cannabis could be rated to be a relatively safe drug." The author concludes that there is little evidence that long-term cannabis use causes permanent cognitive impairment or has an adverse effect on global intelligence. Iversen does acknowledge, however, that smoking marijuana long-term may cause "the possibility of damage to the airways," though he admits that "little progress has been made in quantifying such risks." The author also notes that various longitudinal studies have found an association between the long-term, heavy use of cannabis and specific adverse psychosocial features, including lower educational achievement, though he acknowledges that there exists no "clear cause and effect relationship to explain the psychosocial associations." NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre praised the review, stating: "Marijuana is not a harmless substance, though its scientifically acknowledged harms are quite minimal compared to other legally regulated intoxicants, including alcohol and tobacco. By far the greatest danger to health posed by the responsible use of cannabis in the United States today stems from a criminal arrest or conviction." For more information, please contact Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director, at (202) 483-5500. DL: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6415 Source: NORML Foundation (DC) NORML's Weekly News Bulletin -- Jan. 20, 2005 NORML's Weekly News Bulletin -- Jan. 13, 2005 NORML's Weekly News Bulletin -- Jan. 06, 2005 Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #6 posted by afterburner on January 28, 2005 at 02:41:58 PT |
| {US Solicitor General Paul Clement wrote in a letter to Congress, "The government does not have a viable argument to advance in the statute's defense and will not appeal the district court's decision holding the provision as currently drafted [is] unconstitutional."} Too bad the committee that brought the original bill to open Congress didn't have the good sense to check this bill with the Solicitor General *before* they recommended such flawed legislation. {NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre said the Justice Department acted reasonably in refusing to defend the ban, but rebuked "those in Congress who supported such a blatantly unconstitutional law in their zeal to stifle any legitimate debate regarding America's misguided drug policies."} What he said. {"A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. He added: "Official conduct that does not 'compromise any legitimate interest of privacy' is not a search to the Fourth Amendment. We have held that any interest in possessing contraband cannot be deemed 'legitimate,' and thus, governmental conduct that only reveals the possession of contraband 'comprises no legitimate privacy interest.'"} By this logic even your house is not safe from dog sniffs, since you may have contraband in your house. Someone has already pointed out that this ruling opens the door for sniff searches of law-abiding pedestrians. To quote the right-wing thugs, "If you don't have anything to hide, then you have nothing to fear." Translation: The Fourth Amendment is being shredded by fearful legislators and judges, and the common law tradition of "A man's home is his castle" is now null and void. "piercing their comfortable mist" I love that phrase, GW! {"A review of the literature suggests that the majority of cannabis users, who use the drug occasionally rather than on a daily basis, will not suffer any lasting physical or mental harm," writes the study's author, Dr. Leslie Iversen of the University of Oxford. "Overall, by comparison with other drugs used mainly for 'recreational' purposes, cannabis could be rated to be a relatively safe drug."} Astounding! Could it be that this distinguished scientist does not know about the schizophrenia studies, such as "The research published in the BMJ ... carried out by psychiatrists in Maastricht in the Netherlands" or *perhaps* he does not find them to be credible science. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #5 posted by kaptinemo on January 27, 2005 at 18:05:34 PT:
|
| in a few of his fiction and non-fictional works: *I think you have missed the most alarming symptom of all. This one I shall tell you. But go back and search for it. Examine it. Sick cultures show a complex of symptoms as you have named... But a dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than a riot. This symptom is especially serious in that an individual displaying it never thinks of it as a sign of ill health but as proof of his/her strength.* For a few more of Robert Heinlein's quotes, I offer: http://patrifriedman.com/quotes/heinlein.html [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by FoM on January 27, 2005 at 15:39:10 PT |
| You could very well be right. The more I see people threatening each other the more I wonder what has happened to good will and tolerance between people who don't think the same. I am glad I live in the country because if I was around behavior like we are talking about it would drive me crazy. Violence begets violence. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by global_warming on January 27, 2005 at 15:23:12 PT |
| Beside the fact that this might be just a pissing contest and all that testosterone, maybe those politicians are starting to get a little bit edgy as the global marijuana movement is piercing their comfortable mist of what they call reality. Keeping the Faith gw [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by FoM on January 27, 2005 at 15:11:07 PT |
| I read that article and thought what is it with people threatening each other. Clint Eastwood threatened Michael Moore and some strange southern democrat threatened Chris Matthews before the election. I don't understand the behavior. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by global_warming on January 27, 2005 at 14:57:07 PT |
| http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050127/NEWS03/501270336/1007 "Acting Gov. Codey said Wednesday he threatened to take a radio show host outside after the shock jock made dismissive comments about postpartum depression, an ailment that has afflicted Codey's wife, Mary Jo." I post this item because there is some background information that relates to MMJ. On the event that is in question, the DJ had said that the acting governors desire to spend $200 Million NJ tax dollars to help the sufferers of postpartum depression, was based on the governors wife having such an ailment, the DJ said that such an illness effected a very few citizens of the state of NJ and that if that kind of money was available it would be better spent on helping the many sick and in pain by establishing a MMJ plan in the state of NJ. In New Jersey, there is a Medical Marijuana "Compassionate Use" legislative bill that is being examined by the legislature currently, and while the acting governor said last week that he would veto such a bill if it came to his desk, yet he is willing to support spending so much money for something that is close to his home. I had once thought about voting for this Codey guy, but after hearing his position on MMJ he no longer has my vote, and further, after such a display of thuggary and greedy power, I hope I never hear this mans name ever again. gw [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |