Law Professor Jonathan Turley supports San Francisco's attempt to grow its own pot. Not because he cares about pot, or its medicinal uses for the terminally ill, but because:

"Whatever societal risks are presented by terminally ill patients getting stoned, they pale in comparison with the political risks of yielding to federal authority in this area. Of course, it may be too much to hope that there is more than mere opportunism in the recent embrace of federalism. "

We agree, although we care more about the need for marijuana to be made available to those who could benefit from its medicinal use.

Kudos to OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today for their reprinting of Anatomy of an Execution in yesterday's Jerusalem Post.

Best of the Web is a blog by James Taranto, conservative editor for the Wall Street Journal. No way does he oppose capital punishment like we do, and he admits it. Yet he says today after reading the Jerusalem Post piece,

"Now, we don't oppose the death penalty, provided it's administered with due process. But would someone explain to us again why Europeans and the American left are so sympathetic to the Palestinian cause?"

Good point. But for the record, the liberals here are pro-Israel. As to the death penalty, we want a moratorium now. abolition in the future. Right after passage of the Innocence Protection Act.

Alan P. Zelicoff, senior scientist at the Center for National Security and Arms Control in Albuquerque, gives his opinion on the request for and refusal of congressional members to take polygraphs to show they didn't leak information in Polygraph Hypocrisy.

The leak concerned the National Security Agency's inteception of a telephone conversation in Arabic conducted on Sept. 10, 2001, declaring that the following day was to be "zero hour."

The refusal is, as Zelicoff points out, the height of hypocrisy. Sen. Shelby, one of those refusing, was responsible recently for the creation of a "massive program to polygraph some 15,000 scientists at Department of Energy laboratories and to remove their security clearances if they declined."

Hypocrisy aside, the important point of the commentary is the end, which echoes what defense lawyers and researchers have been saying for years: Polygraphs are not scientifically reliable.

"Every first-year medical student knows that the four parameters measured by the polygraph -- blood pressure, pulse, sweat production and breathing rate -- are affected by an uncountable myriad of emotions: joy, hate, elation, sadness, anxiety, depression and so forth. Dozens of studies conducted in psychology departments and medical schools all over the world have shown that the polygraph cannot distinguish between truth-telling and lying. Claims from polygraphers notwithstanding, no evidence exists that they can find spies."

"Double agents Aldrich Ames, Karl Koecher, LarryWu-Tai Chin and Ana Belen Montes all passed their polygraphs before doing tremendous damage that led, among other things, to the deaths of American operatives overseas."

Zelicoff says the polygraph is a "degrading, largely useless test that, on occasion, randomly turns up "positive."

Looking for the silver lining in the hypocrisy of the congressional refusal, he concludes:

"But perhaps some good will come of this episode if at long last, the current display of Congress's hypocrisy accomplishes what the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence has not: the discrediting of the polygraph as a valid counterintelligence tool. "

For more on this junk science, check out Anti-Polygraph.Org.

Lawyers in New York are paid $25 an hour for out of court time and $40 an hour for in court time to represent the poor. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this is less than a break even cost for most competent private counsel. In criminal cases with more than one defendant, the public defender (or legal aid counsel) can only represent one of them due to conflict of interest issues. Private counsel must be appointed to represent the others, as well as any client for whom the public defender would be disqualified.

For years, lawyers have tried to raise the fee levels. No success. Governor Pataki (another reason to vote for Cuomo) promised fee increases and later backed out due to what he termed "budget constraints."

So the lawyers sued. Trial started today.

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees effective assistance of counsel to every person accused of crime. That simply isn't possible at the low rates New York is paying. (It is also way below the current federal rate for indigent defense lawyers --now $90 an hour for both in and out of court time--with recommendations on the table to raise it to $112 an hour.) These lawyers do not receive reimbursement for overhead expenses--rent, secretary, telephone, etc. Yet they remain supremely dedicated to their mission--representing those whom society deems the lowest among us--those who are poor, disenfranchised and charged with the most heinous of crimes.

We should be saluting these lawyers and financially compensating them for their work and their dedication. The criminal justice system would crumble without them.

In a series of articles, the New York Times found that "representation given to the poor in New York City routinely fell short of the minimum standards recommended by legal experts, in part because of a shortage of qualified private lawyers willing to work for the current rates."

Yesterday, two former judges and the director of the program providing legal representation for juveniles testified " that the lack of lawyers to represent the poor caused serious disruption to the most basic of legal proceedings."

We're rooting for the New York County Lawyers' Association to win the lawsuit. You should too.

The Marijuana Policy Project's initiative campaign to legalize marijuana possession and use in Nevada has secured the endorsement of the Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs. With more than 3,000 members statewide, NCOPS is the largest police association in Nevada.

"As a former law-enforcement officer, I know that a simple marijuana arrest takes me off the street for half my shift," said NCOPS President Andy Anderson today as he announced his organization's ground-breaking endorsement. "Passage of Question 9 will ensure that more cops are on the streets to protect our citizens from violent crime and the threat of terrorism."

Instapundit today takes on the Washington Post for their editorial criticizing Ashcroft's reversal of DOJ policy on the Second Amendment.

Professor Reynolds correctly points out that "prosecution for illegally carrying guns doesn't violate the right to keep and bear arms anyway. Scholarship on the Second Amendment is almost completely in agreement on this point."

The Professor also correctly observes that state constitutional protections are greater than their federal counterpart.

As a bit of a refresher for those who have been concentrating on other issues lately, ourselves included,

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Compare that with article II, section 13 of the Colorado Constitution:

“The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.”

According to the Colorado Supreme Court (cite below)

The Colorado Constitution, like the constitution of many other states, expressly guarantees the right to bear arms for purposes of self-defense and the defense of property. Four states have right to bear arms provisions which are identical to Colorado's. (Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma). Miss. Const. art. III, § 12; Mo. Const. art. I, § 23; Mont. Const. art. III, § 12; and Okla. Const. art. II, § 26.

The constitutions of twenty other states expressly guarantee individuals the right to bear arms for purposes of self-defense: Ala. Const. art. I, § 26; Ariz. Const. art. II, § 26; Conn. Const. art. I, § 15; Del. Const. art. I, § 20; Fla. Const. art. I, § 8; Ind. Const. art. I, § 32; Ky. Const. § I, para. 7; Mich. Const. art. I, § 6; Neb. Const. art. I, § 1; N.H. Const. pt. 1, art. 2a; N.D. Const. art. I, § 1; Or. Const. art. I, § 27; Pa. Const. art. I, § 21; S.D. Const. art. VI, § 24; Tex. Const. art. I, § 23; Utah Const. art. I, § 6; Vt. Const. ch. 1, art. 16; Wash. Const. art I, § 24; W.Va. Const. art. III, § 22; and Wyo. Const. art. 1, § 24.

Constitutions of several other states have been construed merely to guarantee the collective or "state's right" to bear arms for the maintenance of the militia See, e.g., Alaska Const. art. I, § 19; Haw. Const. art. I, § 15; La. Const. art. I, § 8; N.C. Const. art. I, § 24; S.C. Const. art. I, § 26. See also Ark. Const. art. II, § 5 (right to bear arms for "common defense"); Mass. Const. pt. 1 art. XVII (same).

Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Wisconsin have no constitutional provisions specifically guaranteeing the right to bear arms.

Source: Robertson v. City and County of Denver, 874 P.2d 325 at 328, fn. 6 (Colo. Supreme Court, 1994)

As to Tennessee, the Colorado Court placed Art. 1 Section 26 of its State Constitution in the "collective" list. But we've been informed by Instapundit that Tennessee has always treated the right as individual, and this year declared the right to be "fundamental" and as strong as the state constitutional privacy right that protects abortion choice in Tennessee to a greater degree than Roe. Professor Reynolds should know, he has written at least one law review article on it, "Symposium: "The Law of the Land": Tennessee Constitutional Law: the Right to Keep and Bear Arms under the Tennessee Constitution: a Case Study in Civic Republican Thought", 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 647.

Please let us know (you can use the comments feature) if the Colorado court has mischaracterized your state constitutional provisions on the issue, and we'll make note.

Sunday's Chicago Tribune has a feature article, School Drug Prevention Questioned

"The top three programs used by schools to keep students away from drugs are either ineffective or haven't been sufficiently tested, new research suggests.

In a study being published Saturday in Health Education Research, a journal for educators, researchers from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill say many schools are using popular programs such as D.A.R.E., Here's Looking at You 2000 and McGruff's Drug Prevention and Child Protection, which haven't shown the kind of results that schools should expect, despite years of use. "

Nevada may become the first state to make marijuana use legal for any reason--medical or recreational.

On the ballot is a proposat that would eliminate penalties for possessing up to three ounces of marijuana for any reason and direct the state legislature to treat marijuana similarly to tobacco and alcohol by implementing a system that would oversee its growth and sale, and impose taxes thereby creating revenue. Here is site carrying the text of the initiative.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal endorsed the idea in a July 7 editorial, calling it "a promising first step" toward ending "the needless harassment of individuals who peacefully and privately use marijuana."

The law is not without restrictions. It would prohibit selling marijuana to anyone under 21, or in public place such as schools and parks.

A recent poll showed the measure has a 44% appoval rating with 10% undecided.

This is an opportunity for Nevada to shine by becoming the first state to to take the big step and "just say no" to the war on drugs.

With only 112 days left in this campaign, there is not much time to raise the substantial sum of money that is needed to run hard-hitting TV ads at the end of the campaign. Please visit NLRE now to donate $10 or more.

From the Marijuana Policy Project:

Two New Medical Marijuana Studies Seek Patients in San Francisco. One study will evaluate whether smoking marijuana reduces pain in people with HIV-related peripheral neuropathy.

The second study is for cancer patients and will evaluate whether marijuana, when used with MS Contin, will have an effect on pain relief -- and whether marijuana reduces the side effects of MS Contin, which include nausea and/or vomiting. Patients must have certain types of cancer to be eligible.

Gail Davis has a great post today comparing the sentences received by the Tulia defendants with that of John Walker Lindh.

She also opines about CIA agent John Spann's father's request to address the Court at Lindh's sentencing.

Best of all are her remarks about the power of prosecutors in charging and sentencing decisions and the effect it has on our system of justice.

Tonight (Tuesday, July 30) at 10:00 p.m. EDT, ABC News will air "War on Drugs, A War on Ourselves With John Stossel." The prime-time investigation questions whether the drug war causes more problems than the drugs themselves.

You can also read Stossel's report, Just Say No: Government's War on Drugs Fail.

Bob Herbert, in Kafka in Tulia, has written a scathing opionion piece for today's New York Times on the unconscionable drug sweeps in Tulia, Texas.

"It is not an overstatement to describe the arrests in Tulia as an atrocity. The entire operation was the work of a single police officer who claimed to have conducted an 18-month undercover operation. The arrests were made solely on the word of this officer, Tom Coleman, a white man with a wretched work history, who routinely referred to black people as "niggers" and who frequently found himself in trouble with the law."

For more on the facts, here's a January 22, 2001 article from the Washington Post, Massive Drug Sweep Divides Texas Town . The Post article quotes the ACLU's description of the undercover operation as "an ethnic cleansing of young male blacks from Tulia."

Although the raids took place in 1999, people are still in jail and needing help. Bob Herbert tells us:

"The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the William Moses Kunstler Fund for Racial Justice, the Tulia Legal Defense Project and a number of private law firms are trying to mount an effort to free the men and women imprisoned in this fiasco.

The idea that people could be rounded up and sent away for what are effectively lifetime terms solely on the word of a police officer like Tom Coleman is insane. "

The final defendant's case was dismissed on July 24. But 14 more remain in prison and volunteer attorneys are working to get them out.

For even more on this, the ACLU has a list of news articles with links.

[comments now closed]