TELL YOUR STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS: “JUST SAY NO TO DRUG WAR BRIBES!”
Taken from NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW
Volume 73 | Number 3 Article 5
Myth of Dual Sovereignty: Multijurisdictional Drug Law Enforcement and Double Jeopardy – Sandra Guerra
Read/Download the entire document with references on our 420leaks database at https://app.box.com/s/d1f76lya313nuescjxvxrsaw6v1p4tqg
“B. Encouraging States to Adopt Specific Laws and Policies Using Financial Carrots and Sticks
Because states and localities have not always shown an eagerness to submit to the control of federal agencies, the federal government has found it necessary to entice their cooperation. The drug task forces encourage participation in two ways. First, they offer state and local agents the opportunity to work with federal agents on equal terms, thereby elevating the status of state and local agents. Thus, state and local criminal justice personnel are less likely to resent the federal presence. Second, the federal government recognizes that generous remuneration decreases power struggles. The federal anti-drug effort makes substantial sums available to state and local governments following the federal plan. If the President’s 1995 budget request is fully funded, state and local governments will receive roughly $811million. The timing of the drive for federalization has coincided with a period of economic hardship in most states. By offering financial incentives, the federal government has effectively dismantled potential political opposition to its growing influence over state and local policy making. To the contrary, state and local agencies consider themselves the beneficiaries of federal largess. To maximize their intake of federal dollars, state and local agencies seek ways to become involved in federal investigations.
The expansion of federal influence also coincides with a self-perpetuating cycle of political rhetoric that has fed a public frenzy over drug crimes. In turn, public opinion has justified even stronger rhetoric and broader policies. In this environment, any dissent from proposals for broader law enforcement efforts and more severe penalties is widely viewed as political suicide. Neither state nor federal leaders dare come forward with objections, even if the objections are based on federalism concerns rather than substantive policy concerns. Issues of federalism give way under the weight of public fear of crime and the states’ needs for economic aid.”
Still influencing policy to this day. Here are links to the current version of the WA state bill, HB 1095 that would allow sick kids to use nonsmokable cannabis medication in schools. It was first introduced in 2017.
As of this post, they haven’t passed it yet because of fears over losing federal grants. They even have language to end the program if the feds even hint at withholding those grants. It’s sad…
Spelled out in the fiscal note. No threat to health or public safety, just the fear of loosing up to nearly a BILLION just in federal education grants because of schedule 1 language..
This in a state that has clearly stated medical use since 1980 in the Controlled Substances Therapeutic Research Act, that was quickly defunded.
The Legislators openly declares medical evidence exists at RCW 69.51A.005
Purpose and intent.
(1) The legislature finds that:
(a) There is medical evidence…
Money over real people, in this case it is sick, disabled and terminally ill children’s education. The leadership in these parties need to go back to basics…
Washington State Constitution
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER.
All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights…
SECTION 1 PREAMBLE.
It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex.