Austin Criminal Defense Lawyer & Attorney : Jamie Spencer Law Firm : DWI, DUI, Drug Possession : Serving Georgetown, Round Rock, San Marcos, Travis, Williamson, and Hays County, Texas

I enjoyed Cliff Hutchison’s post at the ScienceEvidence Blog (cleverly titled Don’t Bogart That Expert) about the qualifications of a marijuana defendant’s expert witness. 

The case discussed involved a former criminal defense lawyer who was an opponent of the drug war, who had been qualified in 100 marijuana cases to testify as an expert witness, always for the defense. The court eventually ruled that the defense had not properly established his qualifications as an expert in the field.

However, they rejected the Government’s theory that his testimony was more prejudicial than probative, simply on the basis of his bias against our current system of prohibition and incarceration.  Cliff questioned that part of the finding:

Query, though, if the government wasn’t correct in arguing that an advocate witness has no business offering Rule 702 testimony? Logan claimed to have testified in over one hundred marijuana cases, and if his testimony was consistently an argument favoring marijuana defendants, how can it be considered reliable? The testimony becomes simply bolstering, in the guise of expert opinion, hence not helpful to the fact finder.

I have to jump in and disagree here. Let me make my point by using some obvious and common examples from the prosecution. Would this mean that the Austin Police Department’s DWI Task Force officers, who are qualified as experts in the standard field sobriety tests based on their NHTSA training, would be disallowed if it turned out they always testified for the prosecution? (I assume it’s self evident that they do.)  If I could just get them disqualified, I'd probably win every case...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Jordan Smith’s always excellent Weed Watch column in this week’s Austin Chronicle focuses on three topics:

1. 800,000 arrests in the U.S. for marijuana in 2005 (with 88% of them being for simple possession)
2. Willie Nelson’s recent non-arrest for half a pound of marijuana
3. The Government’s new anti-marijuana You Tube campaign

Anyone reading this think they could have gotten star treatment for a felony amount of marijuana? If getting a ticket is good enough for Willie, why does everyone else have to be arrested for it?

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

From the Christian Science Monitor, the title of this article says it all: “Plan Columbia: big gains, but the cocaine still flows…”

The “big gains” part consists of the assertions of the White House Drug Czar John Walters:

"There is absolutely no question we are winning …We are squeezing them. We are forcing them to change their drug trafficking routes and their methods," says Walters.

Wait a minute… changing their routes, their methods??? …as for the “cocaine still flows” part of the article:

There is no lack, after all, of coca. Despite the unprecedented eradication efforts, coca cultivation actually increased last year by 8 percent, according to a study released in June by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)… Why? Growing techniques have improved over the years and farmers in some regions are now able to harvest coca leaf six times a year, instead of the usual four harvests.

(Check out the chart in guest poster Daksya's entry over at DrugWarRant for more on the numbers. )

Near the end of the article comes this last quote.  When even the apologists make statements like these, maybe people will wake up and realize what a colossal waste the so called war on drugs is:

"We're making first downs," US Ambassador to Colombia William Wood is fond of saying, "...but we're not sure how long the football field is."

Someone needs to tell Walters and Wood that 10 yard first downs will never win... on an infinitely long field.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Radley Balko over at The Agitator posts three examples about the dangers of paramilitary police raids.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Stan White writes a Letter to the Editor of the Central Kentucky Newsletter decrying a pastor’s previous letter bashing medical marijuana. I’m interested myself in looking into his claim that the kaneh-bosm mentioned in the Old Testament is actually cannabis, but for now, I’ll leave you with this quote:

Biblically, caging humans for using cannabis (kaneh bosm) is a sin and for clergy to support cannabis persecution, prohibition and extermination is very regrettable.

Biblically, morally, ethically and also, just from the standpoint of “Your Tax Dollars At Work”, I have to agree with him.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The El Paso County Attorney Jose Rodriguez defends his decision to subject a 16 year old female juvenile to the threat of a 40 year sentence for attempting to smuggle cocaine across the border:

"Proceeding under (the) determinate sentencing statute in this case demonstrates that we will not tolerate these types of crimes, and should serve as a warning to those teens who might be tempted by the money being offered by the drug cartels," Rodriguez said.

Anyone out there believe this has any shot at deterring 16 year olds from doing foolish things?

Rodriguez also points out that she may get less than 40 years, possibly even probation, despite his decision to certify her as an adult offender. Why then does he not let her face imprisonment until she’s 21, under the juvenile statutes?

"We simply wanted to give jurors an option for a wider sentence," Dominguez said. "Our emphasis is not on incarcerating juveniles but on rehabilitating them."

So…seeking more than five years for a juvenile drug offender is emphasizing rehabilitation not punishment?

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The “Gateway Theory” of marijuana prohibition goes like this: marijuana use leads to “hard drug” use, such as cocaine and heroin. Since cocaine and heroin use are “bad”, we must criminalize marijuana to keep our children (and perhaps ourselves) from becoming hard core drug addicts.

The proof of the Gateway Theory is supposed to lie in the statistics that show that cocaine and heroin users in large part started out using marijuana. Since correlation (apparently) proves causation, marijuana use in teenagers and young adults therefore causes “hard drug” use later on.

Like most logical fallacies, when presented artfully, this can be a persuasive rhetorical device: it appears that the proponent of the theory is correct. Cocaine and Heroin users have a very high incidence of marijuana being their first illegal drug of choice. There must be a causal connection.

Let’s ignore for now the refutation that a higher percentage of cocaine and heroin addicts consumed alcohol than marijuana, and we all “know” that alcohol use does not cause cocaine or heroin addiction… (since many readers, like me, are occasional alcohol consumers who have never tried cocaine or heroin)

Let me ask you this: don’t you think the percentage of cocaine and heroin users that drank milk sometime in their lives (before use of the drug) is probably almost 100%?

Correlation does not prove causation. That’s just another logical fallacy brought to you by the Drug Czar.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

When you catch someone in a deliberate lie, don't you distrust the rest of their message?

Opponents of the marijuana decriminalization movement are fond of using straw man arguments.  These deliberate mischaracterizations tend to fall into two broad categories: (1) "They just want to smoke dope", and (2) "They want your children to become addicts/dope fiends".

While I'm sure there are casual marijuana users who support legalization, the first argument ignores all the economic, social and moral reasons we should have a more sensible drug policy.

Jordan Smith's Weed Watch column in this week's Austin Chronicle highlights an example of the second type of straw man argument.  Here is the entire text of the question being submitted to Colorado voters:

Shall there be an amendment to 18-18-406 (1) of the Colorado Revised Statutes making legal the possession of one ounce or less of marihuana for any person twenty-one years of age or older?

However, opponents of Amendment 44 have managed to write the language of Colorado's voter-education pamphlet to "explain" that the amendment would allow adults to give marijuana to teenagers.  Go ahead... re-read the text of the amendment.  Now ask yourself this:

If propronents of continuing the criminalization of marijuana were being honest, would they have to resort to such tactics?

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Posey County Prosecutor Jodi Uebelhack brags about Posey County, Illinois' new forfeiture program in this story from WFIE Evansville Channel 14 news.  I'll leave commenting on the wisdom and ultimate fairness of seizing assets from "suspected" but not yet convicted drug dealers for another post.  But check out the quote from the County prosecutor at near the end of the article:

"It may well deter using the vehicles. I don't know that it will deter the drug dealing," says Uebelhack.

Isn't that an admission by the state that this tactic on the so called "War on Drugs" is a failure?  It's all about supply and demand; and here's the prosecutor admitting that civil forfeiture of assets in drug cases won't help solve the problem itself.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Office of National Drug Control Policy's blog 'Pushing Back' posted an entry where they ask "Marijuana near schools: Harmless?"

Read the Sacramento TV News station's story that the Drug Czar points to, and ask yourself this:  Was it the marijuana that 'caused' the gun problem?  Or is the fact that marijuana is criminalized what 'caused' these folks to bring handguns and an assault rifle with them?

There are truckers all over the highways across America transporting tons of legal substances (coffee, tea, etc.) that don't feel the need to arm themselves this way.  But if caffeine products were illegal, wouldn't it be the law itself that caused the transporters of the coffee and tea to arm themselves, and not the caffeine itself?

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Bill Maher has an excellent short piece over at the Huffington Post about how America's War on Drugs is actually fueling the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The larger point here is that it is the criminalization of drug use itself that causes the most harm.  Yes, the drug users are harming themselves by "choosing" to use drugs.  But the street violence and drain on the treasury, which are the effects that the rest of us feel, would almost disappear if we had a sensible drug policy.  And now, we can add the War on Terror itself as one of the Drug War's casualties.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks