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
Posted January 22nd, 2011 by hiwayhowie
Annual Report: Citizens Opposing Prohibition – 2009/2010
The House Crime Subcommittee adjourned and I made contact with the Member who is the presumptive chairman, when the Republicans take control of the House in 2011. This was our sixth (6th) chat in three years. He had already agreed that current policy was ineffective but he asked, “What do we do? Just give up on these (addicts) people?” “No.” I replied, “But arresting them wastes precious police time. The government can not fix stupid. Only family and friends might have a chance.” He nodded and we chatted another minute. I knew his Chief of Staff was on board to end marijuana prohibition from a chat earlier this year.
This type of ‘Grass Tops’ contact is what COPs is all about. In our first year you kept an anti-prohibition, law enforcement voice on Capitol Hill and in the DC area, a voice which generates instant credibility. The transition from carrying a LEAP card to a COPs card was a smooth one. My cowboy hat and politics are what staffers and Members remember, not my card. COPs had ‘sit-down’ conversations with 443 Congressional staffers and chats with seven more Members. This steady contact reminded all of them that solid, law enforcement professionals oppose the current prohibition approach to some drugs.
Since 2005 I have been educating/advocating to Members and their staff for a drug policy commission, even before Senator Webb (D-VA) was elected in November 2006. These efforts bore fruit in 2009, when Webb introduced the National Criminal Justice Commission bill which cleared the Senate’s Judiciary Committee with a unanimous vote in early 2010. In the summer of 2010 the House passed the bill on a voice vote. Though it died during the lame duck session, it will be introduced again in 11. Through educational efforts these past five years, I have prepared the ground for the passage of the Webb bill. As members of Citizens Opposing Prohibition, you can take credit for the progress made in 2009 and 2010.
Moving forward into its second year, COPs is in poised to add to the progress already made and enter new areas. We will educate the Congress on the advantages of allowing the several States to set their own couse for drug policy, starting with marijuana. I will attend two, new national conferences in 2011: the LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens- similar to NAACP) and the NRA (National Rifle Association). As I have done the past five years, I will attend the CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) and the three day conference in DC sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus. Weekly, I attend the Grover Norquist brunch (120 conservative VIPs attending) and monthly I attend the Leadership Institutes’ breakfast which features conservative speakers, including Members of Congress. I will seek out and go to the groups who do not yet agree with our position on drug policy. We are adding speaking engagements to service clubs, churches and other community groups to our list of activities as well.
The ‘bread and butter’ of COPs will continue to be spending time in the Congress, meeting staff and Members. Ending federal drug prohibition is a crucial part of the national strategy. The prohibition crowd delights in repeating that federal law trumps any state law. Our first year stats are below for your review. I hope and trust you will continue to support these efforts.
Thank you,
Howard Wooldridge
Drug Policy Specialist and Executive Director, Citizens Opposing Prohibition
COPs First Year Stats 2009-2010
443 presentations to Congressional Staffers
7 presentations to VIPs (elected officials)
37 published Letters to the Editor
Numerous conferences, hearings & briefings attended. C-Span broadcast my question at a Senate briefing.
12 radio shows
8 TV interviews (Colombian TV, Fox and Univision, NBC, cable)
