The New Civil Rights Division Head Wants to Decriminalize Possession of All Drugs

[neversickanymore]

The New Civil Rights Division Head Wants to Decriminalize Possession of All Drugs
Cully Stimson
October 20, 2014

So who supports decriminalizing cocaine, heroin, LSD, methamphetamine, ecstasy and all dangerous drugs, including marijuana?

No, it’s not your teenage nephew. It’s President Obama’s new acting head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, Vanita Gupta. In 2012, Gupta wrote that “states should decriminalize simple possession of all drugs, particularly marijuana, and for small amounts of other drugs.” (Emphasis mine).

Last week, President Obama appointed Vanita Gupta to the position of acting head. According to the Washington Post, the administration plans to nominate her in the next few months to become the permanent assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division. Her views on sentencing reform–a bi-partisan effort in recent years–have earned her qualified kudos from some conservatives.

continued here http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/20/n...on-head-wants-decriminalize-possession-drugs/

 

[Jabberwocky]

And it should be fucking retroactive, beginning with the original criminalization (felonious treatment) of the drug possession (+ attempted possession)...

Not going to hold my breath though

 

[ro4eva]

Keeping my fingers crossed - don't disappoint everyone counting on you Gupta, and sorry if I'm putting you on the spot. Don't pull an Obama and act so passive it would make a sloth blush.

 

[neversickanymore]

Vanita Gupta

 

[512]

im going to do more research on this. Honestly i dont' think its right to get a felony possession for a simple vicodin. I'm not hurting anybody. Given that im using it safely, im not even hurting myself.

 

[ro4eva]

im going to do more research on this. Honestly i dont' think its right to get a felony possession for a simple vicodin. I'm not hurting anybody. Given that im using it safely, im not even hurting myself.

Well, technically no drug is without risk - not even the THC in weed.

That being said, I completely agree with you in that you should never be treated as a felonious criminal because you happen to be in possession of a plant, powder, pill, capsule, liquid, etc. which happens to have an intoxicating effect on a human being's nervous system when consumed.

You are not victimizing anyone by doing so. You always attempt to make sure any possible risks to your health are minimized before, during, and after the consumption of your drug of choice. And, by choosing to consume it in the privacy of your own home, you are not causing any sort of public disturbance.

With respect to hurting someone by consuming a recreational drug, chances are that the person who could be harmed is yourself if you are being reckless (which you aren't). Therefore, if there is a victim in all this, it's yourself. But then why throw the victim in jail (and possibly in prison)? It just doesn't make any sense when considering the fact that ethyl alcohol - which is easily one of the most toxic, damaging drugs - and nicotine - which has been repeatedly shown to be the most addictive or habit forming drug on the planet - are both perfectly legal provided that you are of proper age for both (usually 18 - 21+).

I know that to some BLers, I probably sound like a recording by now, but the truth is that something as overlooked as the unauthorized duplication of copyrighted material (digital piracy) is anything but a victimless crime, yet, it's treated as a civil matter by law enforcement (with a few rare exceptions). There is no felony conviction for this, and there sure as hell should be IF the simple possession of a mind altering substance happens to carry such stiff penalties.

So why isn't there a "war on digital piracy?" The obvious answer is a lack of money to be made by the pigs who currently pillage and plunder the homes of "suspicious looking" Americans.

Thank God for the internet. Without it, we would not have been able to expose the blatant hypocrisy that is this war on (certain) drugs.

Rest assured 512, there will come a day when you won't have to constantly look over your shoulder because you happen to prefer an opioid analgesic as your drug of choice instead of alcoholic beverages and/or tobacco/nicotine products. There is still a lot of work left to do; a lot of mythbusting of biased drug war propaganda remains, but overall we have made a lot of progress over the past 5 years. And I'm confident that this will continue.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I believe 2016 will be a year to remember for the 'other (currently controlled) drugs using minority.' I'll be completely elated to witness those draconian UN Convention on Narcotic Drugs treaties being repealed and torn up. Because we have been used as scapegoats for far too long. It's about time we are treated like equal human beings.

 

[Crankinit]

I know that to some BLers, I probably sound like a recording by now,

More "preaching to the choir." I don't think anyone disagrees with you about decriminalizing personal use.

but the truth is that something as overlooked as the unauthorized duplication of copyrighted material (digital piracy) is anything but a victimless crime

I have a hard time thinking of many people as being victims of "piracy", since the record companies (who generally screw the artists we love over at every chance they get in the first place) brought it on themselves by refusing to adapt to a new medium out of greed, and it's been going on for nearly 20 years now while the music industry continues to thrive. Likewise with movies, television and gaming. Studios in each of those mediums are pouring more than ever into their productions, which would be unlikely if piracy was robbing them of their income. Take Game of Thrones for example, it has been consistently cited as one of the most pirated TV series, and yet they keep pumping millions more into a new season every year. They aren't doing that because HBO consists of a collection of millionaire diehard fantasy fans, they're a business, and if they weren't making a profit from it, they wouldn't be doing it. Likewise with Breaking Bad, which managed to put out 7 excellent seasons despite also being cited as one of the most widely pirated TV series.

Again, if there's a victim here, it's the cable companies who want me to pay $40 or $50 a month for a package of 20 or 30 channels full of nonsense I don't care about so I can watch one or two shows I'm interested in. And fuck them. It's borderline extortion, and they're just bitching and pumping lobbying cash into anti-piracy legislation because they don't like the fact that they're a middle man charging exorbitant prices and forcing unwanted products on their customers, refusing to adapt to a new medium and so being forced out of business. I'd happily pay a couple dollars an episode for a high quality stream or download of GOT, or Mad Men, or any of the other half dozen or so shows I watch every time they put out a new season, and so would most people, but because they refuse to meet the customer's need for convenience and the ability to be selective out of greed, the customer resorts to piracy.

If you want an example of online distribution done right, look at Steam. People happily pay for games they could pirate and crack for not a lot more effort, because they offer reasonable prices and easy access. Gamers are happy because they can get their games easily, quickly, reasonably priced (with regular sales and prices going down over time) and all in one place, game studios are happy because gamers are buying their products and so they make a profit and in turn publish more games, which makes gamers happy (at least if the games are good), and Steam get their cut from the whole process, so they're happy too. It's a win/win/win. Music/TV/Movies are hardly suffering, and could be making even more money if only they'd adapt to new mediums and ditch the old, extortionate distribution networks. Hell there are musicians who are branching out and doing this on their own (see NIN as a perfect example, distribute the music for free with fans able to donate whatever they feel it was worth, offer physical copies and higher quality versions for a price, and make more money from touring and merchandise), but they need the push of a preexisting fan base to manage it successfully, usually.

 

[spacejunk]

^ the recent Iggy Pop BBC John Peel Lecture gives a pretty interesting perspective on (music) digital piracy.
He contends that it does indeed have it's victims (artists) and that first it was the corporations ripping them off, now it is the general public.
It's a pretty interesting discussion to be had - but I absolutely agree that the reason numerous "crimes" are of little interest to LE is that drugs are so ridiculously lucrative for police departments.

 

[Crankinit]

Iggy Pop has no excuse. He's a famous musician with an established fan base, and I seriously doubt he's struggling financially, he could easily go his own way regarding distribution, or start his own label. If he chooses to stay in the mainstream music distribution industry and is then pissed off that people don't want to be extorted by middle men, then he has only himself to blame. It's just more whining from another artist who don't want to put any effort into making things easy and fair for their fans. The only people I think music piracy potentially hurts is up and coming artists, because they don't have the momentum of a fanbase behind them or the financial status of an established artist, and without the influence of a relatively major label it's hard work to get your music out there and build that fanbase and get the money to support your work.

I think chasing people down for "piracy" would be even more futile and wasteful than the war on drugs, from a sheer numerical and technological perspective. What they need to do is focus on the real crime - robbery, assault, murder, etc etc. Real crimes with real and immediate victims, perpetrated by individuals who should either be in jail or a mental institution.

 

[spacejunk]

well, not wishing to digress too much, but i guess the point in Iggy's case is that he was a working musician for decades before he saw any financial rewards for his efforts - and he's one of the few lucky ones.
The focus of his lecture is advice for the "up and comers" you describe - with his wealth of experience, dealing with major labels and indies - of being dirt poor in the gutter (in the 1970s) to being a wealthy man in his late 60s today. He's not complaining, he's imparting knowledge.
The man's no fool, public persona not withstanding.

If you listen to the lecture, he doesn't condemn file sharing completely - but the truth of the matter is that it isn't a "victimless" "crime" - like it or not the ramifications of music fans expecting music to be free has huge impacts on the whole industry (which, granted, was utterly fucked anyway - but have you listened to the shit on radio these days? It's total crap, and that's due to the industry collapse precipitated by digital file-sharing.
I'm not saying it's all bad for everyone, but I personally miss the anticipation of recorded output from my favourite artists - without the financial returns, albums just don't carry the same weight they did even 15 years ago.
The plus-side for consumers is that a lot of musicians have been forced to your more, as ticket sales - and especially band merchandise like t-shirts - financially supports bands that tour (to some extent).

Look at it this way - I know a lot of musicians, and even the world famous ones I know work day jobs. The perception of all "rock stars" being filthy rich is rapidly becoming an old cliche. The only musicians I know who don't have day jobs tend to tour 9+ months a year to support themselves - which isn't as glamourous as it sounds.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that the 'victims' of piracy are consumers, as well as artists.

Much the same can be said for Hollywood - I don't necessarily give a fuck, and I'm not a big film person, but all of the re-hashing of old films in recent years must be relating to drop in box office revenues due to a bunch of reasons, but I'm sure file sharing is one of them.
Don't get me wrong, either - I'm not preaching. I'm a starving musician (with a fucking day job) and I have extensive collections of downloaded music and films.
I'm just saying that the notion of "victimless" actions is an interesting one. For better and worse, the ease of online file sharing has changed our cultural and personal consumption of art or entertainment.
I am more than happy to pay a reasonable amount to watch a movie if it isn't complete dross, like Hollywood is churning out these days. It just isn't sustainable to be innovative in these creative industries any more, and I think in some ways it is a lose-lose situation.
It's not a sob-story to acknowledge this, and that there may be potential "victims" (for want of a better word) directly or indirectly.

I totally agree that file-sharers shouldnt be prosecuted, and hate seeing poor people be made an example of.
That isn't fair, but it does raise questions of how much the Internet has altered our perceptions of the exange of goods and services.

Generally law enforcement are not interested in piracy matters - but then you have the high profile arrest of people like Kim Dotcom - and it becomes a little clearer that indeed someone is making money off "free downloads" - its just someone opportunistic enough to make it possible. Not wanting to get into the ethics of that, but it's interesting.

 

[ro4eva]

I have a hard time thinking of many people as being victims of "piracy", since the record companies (who generally screw the artists we love over at every chance they get in the first place) brought it on themselves by refusing to adapt to a new medium out of greed, and it's been going on for nearly 20 years now while the music industry continues to thrive. Likewise with movies, television and gaming. Studios in each of those mediums are pouring more than ever into their productions, which would be unlikely if piracy was robbing them of their income. Take Game of Thrones for example, it has been consistently cited as one of the most pirated TV series, and yet they keep pumping millions more into a new season every year. They aren't doing that because HBO consists of a collection of millionaire diehard fantasy fans, they're a business, and if they weren't making a profit from it, they wouldn't be doing it. Likewise with Breaking Bad, which managed to put out 7 excellent seasons despite also being cited as one of the most widely pirated TV series.

I get what you're saying, however, they are still losing money every time their intellectual property is pirated by a consumer instead of bought.

That being said, the only reason I bring it up in the first place is because of the disparity in laws between it and drug use. And I don't actively seek out pirates and rant about it to them.

Again, if there's a victim here, it's the cable companies who want me to pay $40 or $50 a month for a package of 20 or 30 channels full of nonsense I don't care about so I can watch one or two shows I'm interested in.

Yes, I agree, I'm in the same boat with this shit, and I'm getting tired of it (and in the process of doing something about it).

And fuck them. It's borderline extortion, and they're just bitching and pumping lobbying cash into anti-piracy legislation because they don't like the fact that they're a middle man charging exorbitant prices and forcing unwanted products on their customers, refusing to adapt to a new medium and so being forced out of business. I'd happily pay a couple dollars an episode for a high quality stream or download of GOT, or Mad Men, or any of the other half dozen or so shows I watch every time they put out a new season, and so would most people, but because they refuse to meet the customer's need for convenience and the ability to be selective out of greed, the customer resorts to piracy.

I'm sure you feel ripped off, as do I, as do countless other people - the most glaring and recent example of mine that I can think of being pre-ordering the Collector's Edition of Aliens - Colonial Marines for Xbox 360. Gearbox imposed a gag order on all reviews of the game until the morning of the release date (Pacific Standard Time) IIRC. And as a result, I - along with many other gamers - felt we were cheated, and rightly so based on the E3 demo comparison (and later revelations by the development team).

If you want an example of online distribution done right, look at Steam. People happily pay for games they could pirate and crack for not a lot more effort, because they offer reasonable prices and easy access. Gamers are happy because they can get their games easily, quickly, reasonably priced (with regular sales and prices going down over time) and all in one place, game studios are happy because gamers are buying their products and so they make a profit and in turn publish more games, which makes gamers happy (at least if the games are good), and Steam get their cut from the whole process, so they're happy too. It's a win/win/win. Music/TV/Movies are hardly suffering, and could be making even more money if only they'd adapt to new mediums and ditch the old, extortionate distribution networks. Hell there are musicians who are branching out and doing this on their own (see NIN as a perfect example, distribute the music for free with fans able to donate whatever they feel it was worth, offer physical copies and higher quality versions for a price, and make more money from touring and merchandise), but they need the push of a preexisting fan base to manage it successfully, usually.

Yes, I'm also a Steam customer, they have great sales and prices.

Look - I'm not trying to debate why people are resorting to piracy, or whether it's just because of certain circumstances.

I'm simply stating that it's technically against the law; that the copyrighted material which is pirated is intellectual property, and that - despite the rampant piracy going on - it's treated like a slap on the wrist compared to - for example - a non-violent, victimless 'crime' such as the possession of a mind altering substance for personal use at home (in private).

With the very rare exception, you don't see, read, or hear about people having their houses broken into in the middle of the night by a bunch of pigs with a no-knock warrant who will then proceed to pillage and plunder whatever they can find, and, slap the offender with criminal record if they can by way of the exploitation of the asset forfeiture, mandatory minimums, and/or three strikes law(s).

If you wanna pirate your software, games, movies, music, and so forth, go ahead - I don't give a shit what you do.

I will however continue to bring it up to only highlight the disparity between it and the aforementioned non-violent possession of a mind altering substance. And that is because I feel it further undermines any remaining justification to maintain the drug war status quo. And it's my ultimate desire to contribute in what way I can - regardless of how politically incorrect my comments may be - to ending this disgraceful war, the DEA, and anyone else who is directly profiting from the unjust suffering of countless drug war victims.

So pardon me if I pinched a nerve, but - again - this is all meant to stop the criminalization of people in possession of certain plants, powders, and other substances.

P.S. - For what it's worth, I'll be the first person to admit that I'm guilty of using a pirated copy of Windows XP Professional back in the day, and downloading several songs off of Napster before that.