Posted February 22nd, 2011 by hiwayhowie
Regarding the article on Thursday, “Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne: Mexican cartels an ‘escalating threat’ to U.S.”: Speaking as a retired detective who fought in the trenches of the drug war, I know that this modern drug prohibition has been a spectacular, trillion-dollar failed public policy. We certainly know from our experience in 1933 that, to destroy the Mexican cartels, we simply need to repeal drug prohibition. Horne’s call for a “massive new education campaign to teach drug users about the cartels” is a solution? You have to be kidding me. That was tried after 9/11 and was a colossal failure. Drug users know full well that it is prohibition that causes money to flow to Osama bin Laden.
I challenge Horne to put pen to paper and tell us all the advantages and positive outcomes of drug prohibition. Something that says the disaster and suffering of Mexico is worthwhile. – Howard Wooldridge, Tucson
Posted February 17th, 2011 by hiwayhowie
COPs on the Hill
Your voice in the United States Congress
VIP at the other table: Saturday mornings I spend at the local coffee shop where about seven of us gather to speak French for an hour and then four us stay a bit longer to chat in German. This week one of our group noted that the newly elected state senator was at the next table. Turns out his table’s theme was for anyone in the town to chat & had been meeting every Saturday since the 1950s. I ended up with a full 30 minute chat with the state senator who agreed with COPs on marijuana policy and harm reduction in general.
I need to change my underwear! I spent Tuesday in the House Office Buildings picking up the info on the 96 new Members (got half done). The police had already shut down much of the Capitol grounds in preparation for the President’s State of the Union speech. I had to go out the last door in Cannon. I could see lots of police cars and the streets blocked off. I had almost passed thru the first of the two doors, when one of the officers ordered in that no-mistake-police-voice “Hold it!!” I froze like bird dog hitting the scent of a pheasant. I was hoping the next sensation would be a bolt of electricity from a taser and not a bullet.
“Just wanted to read your jacket…. I agree.” SOB and the price I pay for my billboard jacket.
Tell me about your shirt: While gathering the info on new offices, I wore my COPs t-shirt for comfort and I always get asked 15-20 times each day. Riding up the elevator, the newly elected R Congressman asked about the shirt. We ended up walking to his office door. During that 90 seconds he agreed that 10th amendment should apply to marijuana policy. Wa-hooo!.
It’s winter: It was bound to happen.* While gathering info on new offices, I walked into a Texas office. The receptionist asked where my felt hat was. Busted.* My beaver winter hat is too hot and being brown, does not look right with my white t-shirt…so I wore my white, straw summer hat. After my explanation we ended up having an excellent chat. LOL
*bound to happen = das muß so kommen
*busted = erwischen
COPs 2nd year stats to date:
TV appearances: 12 (ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX, cable)
Newspaper stories: 6 dailes, 3 weeklies
Radio appearances: 6
Published LTE: 7 ( one this week)
66 presentations to Congressional staffers: (8 this week)
5 (Member of Congress) contacts : ( 2 this week)
1 other VIP (MD state Senator): (1 this week)
Consider being a member of COPs at $30.00 or more per year. Your support keeps the COPs voice loud and strong in the halls of the United States Congress. We agree that Modern Prohibition/War on Drugs is the most destructive, dysfunctional and immoral policy since slavery & Jim Crow. Go to: www.CitizensOpposingProhibition.org and click on Donate/Join – by credit card or send a check to:
COP
POB 772
Buckeystown, MD 21717
Howard
Detective/Officer Howard Wooldridge (retired)
Drug Policy Specialist, COP – www.CitizensOpposingProhibition.org
Washington, DC
817-975-1110 Cell
howard@citizensopposingprohibition.org
Domino el español
Ich verstehe mich gut auf Deutsch
Je parle français assez bien pour un petit, timide, moyen cowboy
Citizens Opposing Prohibition – Become a Member
PO Box 772
Buckeystown, MD 21717-0772
Modern Prohibition/The War on Drugs is the most destructive, dysfunctional & immoral domestic policy since slavery & Jim Crow.
Posted January 30th, 2011 by hiwayhowie
Pubdate: Sat, 29 Jan 2011
Editor, the Tribune: As a retired police detective who worked in the trenches of the drug war for 18 years, I heartily agree with Hank Waters that we need to repeal this modern prohibition. Drug prohibition has increased crime, death, disease and quite probably drug use. I could not see one positive outcome from my position in the trenches. The slaughter of innocents at birthday parties in Mexico merits a shrug from us. We don’t care enough to change policy.
I, for one, have faith that few Americans of any age are going to start using heroin or meth or crack if you made them legal and regulated. We are not as stupid as police chiefs, sheriffs and politicians say we are. And if I am wrong, we can always go back to the drug war. As our “thin blue line” gets thinner in Missouri, do you really want us to chase the likes of Willie Nelson and Rush Limbaugh?
Howard Wooldridge
Washington, DC
Posted January 28th, 2011 by hiwayhowie
COPs on the Hill
Your Voice in the United States Congress
Honesty is the best policy: While eating lunch in the Senate’s café, a Texas staffer stopped and asked how my efforts were going. ‘Because of Ron Paul, the resistance to my message among the Republican staffers is near zero. That said, it is still a big rock going up a long hill.’ The staffer laughed and thanked me my frank assessment, saying staffers always here such pie in the sky *optimism from most lobbyists.
Thanks for your time Congressman: At Grover’s Brunch — after the R Congressman had given us a preview of House strategy, I was able to congratulate him on his plans and throw in a suggestion of my own which we discussed for 3 minutes.*** This was our 4th (fourth) chat. Though the topic was not drug policy, always good to keep the lines of communication fresh.
Webb-Kenyon Act of 1913: This alcohol prohibition era law was brought up by my colleague Aaron Houston of SSDP during our chat with Congressman Polis. Boiled down,* if you lived in a ‘wet’ state and took alcohol to a ‘dry’ state, you would be breaking federal law. This would be an additional tool to convince ‘smokeless’ states to vote yes to allow ‘smokey’ states. I have provided it below for your info.
*** Keep in mind that to chat with a Congressman normally costs about $1,000 per minute (at a fundraiser).
*pie in the sky = übertrieben
*boiled down = im wesentlichen
COPs 2nd year stats to date:
TV appearances: 12 (ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX, cable)
Newspaper stories: 6 dailes, 3 weeklies
Radio appearances: 6
Published LTE: 6
58 presentations to Congressional staffers: (12 this week)
3 VIP (Member of Congress) contacts : (1 this week)
Consider being a member of COPs at $30.00 or more per year. Your support keeps the COPs voice loud and strong in the halls of the United States Congress. We agree that Modern Prohibition/War on Drugs is the most destructive, dysfunctional and immoral policy since slavery & Jim Crow. Go to: www.CitizensOpposingProhibition.org and click on Donate/Join – by credit card or send a check to:
OP
POB 772
Buckeystown, MD 21717
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webb%E2%80%93Kenyon_Act
Webb–Kenyon Act
The Webb-Kenyon Act was a 1913 law of the United States that regulated the interstate transport of alcoholic beverages. It was meant to provide federal support for the prohibition efforts of individual states in the face of charges that state regulation of alcohol usurped the federal government’s exclusive constitutional right to regulate interstate commerce.
] Text
The statute reads:[1]
The shipment or transportation, in any manner or by any means whatsoever of any spirituous, vinous, malted, fermented, or other intoxicating liquor of any kind from one State, Territory, or District of the United States, or place noncontiguous to, but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, into any other State, Territory, or District of the United States, or place noncontiguous to, but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, which said spirituous, vinous, malted, fermented, or other intoxicating liquor is intended by any person interested therein, to be received, possessed, sold, or in any manner used, either in the original package, or otherwise, in violation of any law of such State, Territory, or District of the United States, or place noncontiguous to, but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is hereby prohibited.
[edit] Enactment
The law was named for its principal sponsors, Democratic Rep. Edwin Y. Webb of North Carolina and Republican Sen. William S. Kenyon of Iowa. Congress passed the legislation and sent it to the President on February 18, 1913. Ten days later, on February 28, 1913, President William Howard Taft, in the closing days of his administration, vetoed the law on constitutional grounds, believing that it delegated to the individual states the federal government’s exclusive right to regulate interstate commerce. He submitted with his veto an opinion by Attorney General George W. Wickersham. The Senate overrode his veto the same day by a vote of 63 to 21,[2] and the House of Representatives did so by a vote of 246 to 85 on March 1, 1913.[1]
The law did not simply prohibit the transport of alcoholic beverages into “dry” states, that is, states that banned alcohol. At the time of its passage and for years afterward, states varied greatly in their regulation of alcohol. Few banned alcohol entirely and were “bone-dry.” Some allowed liquor to be ordered by mail but limited the amount per month per person or prohibited its receipt by businesses. They differed as well in their definitions of such beverages by alcohol content. The Webb-Kenyon Act established the federal government’s endorsement of the right of each state to control the receipt, distribution, and consumption of alcoholic beverages within its jurisdiction.[3]
Its passage, followed shortly by the passage of an income tax, was recognized as a major progressive victory and gave added impetus to the prohibition movement’s drive for a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol nationwide.[4]
[edit] Constitutionality
The act faced challenges in the courts and the courts differed in their consideration of its constitutionality.[5] Some lower courts declared complete bans on alcohol at the state level unconstitutional. The Supreme Court finally delivered an opinion of the Act on January 8, 1917. The Court sustained the Act by a vote of 7 to 2 in a decision by Chief Justice White in which a total of 6 justices concurred. The Court also affirmed the right of each state to regulate alcohol even to the extent of banning it completely. The case was a challenge to a West Virginia statute that banned shipments even for personal consumption.[6]
Congress responded to the Supreme Court decision by immediately enacting legislation to make the District of Columbia “bone-dry.”[7]
Opponents of nationwide prohibition hoped the Supreme Court decision demonstrated that the ability of each state to exercise complete control over alcohol within its borders would make a constitutional amendment superfluous. “It is better,” said the New York Times, “that prohibition laws should be made effective in communities that want them than that by a Federal amendment the rule of prohibition should be extended over unwilling States.”[8]
The Supreme Court added a further decision upholding the law in its next term in a case involving a North Carolina statute requiring railroads to maintain records of liquor shipments and recipients.[9]
[edit] Repeal of prohibition
The Webb-Kenyon Act became irrelevant with the adoption of national prohibition under the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Volstead Act. With the movement to repeal prohibition by the adoption of the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution, the question of the Act’s validity and enforcement became a political and policy issue once again.[10] The Act was cited as a protection that would shelter dry states if prohibition were repealed.[11]
Howard
Detective/Officer Howard Wooldridge (retired)
Drug Policy Specialist, COP – www.CitizensOpposingProhibition.org
Washington, DC
817-975-1110 Cell
howard@citizensopposingprohibition.org
