http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5663/t/5525/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2218

As soon as this Thursday, November 5, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee could vote on an amendment that will legally prevent some of the government's top advisers from even discussing the idea of legalizing or decriminalizing drugs as a solution to the failed "war on drugs."

The censorship amendment's author, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), is trying to attach the speech prohibition onto an otherwise positive bill that will create a blue ribbon commission to study our nation's failed criminal justice and drug policies. The commission is supposed to make recommendations for ways to improve the system, but how can they do that with the blindfold that Sen. Grassley wants to put on them? Please take action below and tell your senators to oppose the censorship amendment!

At this point, most of them must realize that ending prohibition is the only realistic option.

Yes, nothing like legislating away even talking about reality.

One has to wonder if it's yet another cynical ploy to make Democrats look "soft on drugs."


I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it!

The UK had their own cognitive dissonance regarding the drugs issue on display today, as their own senior drugs advisor (they use the plural over there) was sacked for bringing scientific research on marijuana to the government's attention and mentioning publicly that cannibis was 'much less harmful than tobacco or alcohol' and that its recent classification change to a *more* dangerous drug than it had been previously was politically motivated:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8337185.stm

It appears that several of his colleagues either have resigned or have threatened to resign in protest of his firing, and that PM Gordon Brown came out in the Daily Mail today *admitting* that he overrode the drugs' panel advice 'to avoid giving mixed messages to the children', and this line is particularly hilarious:

'On climate change, or health, for example, we take the best scientific advise possible,' Mr Brown told the London Evening Standard.

'But in an area like drugs we have to look at it in the round.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1224830/Sacked-adviser-Nutt-wrong-risks-drugs-say-scientists.html?ITO=1490

As far as Grassley goes, he's a piece of work, but yes, you have to wonder what sort of cariacature of democracy we live in when our own representatives are so unclear on the concept that they want to forbid even having open discourse on issues in their own committees...

Regards,
Nydia

As far as Grassley goes, he's a piece of work, but yes, you have to wonder what sort of cariacature of democracy we live in when our own representatives are so unclear on the concept that they want to forbid even having open discourse on issues in their own committees...

Regards,
Nydia

The caricature of democracy where those elected to lead a country based on a set of laws would even briefly consider an amendment that would be in direct conflict with one of our most sacred of rights: freedom of speech!

There's precedent for the government being able to contractually squelch Constitutional rights. Join the military, for example.

Usually, they don't flat out gag you, since that would open up a Constitutional challenge. They just give you some plea bargain, monetary deal, or whatever else you need from them, contingent on your "cooperation".

Will make for some interesting oaths: "I swear to uphold and protect the Constitution except for any parts precluded by acts of Congress."

The worst part is that Senator Grassley took the oath himself, which is directly in contradiction with this bill amendment that he's wanting to pass.

The war on drugs is the pinnacle of hypocracy. Nearly 100% of adults medicate somehow. Pills, alcohol, coffee, chocolate, nicotine, whatever...

Maybe we should start a war on war. It would make about as much sense....