Eric Holder Nips Marijuana in the Bud and Invents a Time Cover Story
Jacob Sullum | November 19, 2008, 1:42pm
Barack Obama's selection of Eric Holder as his attorney general is a very discouraging sign for anyone who hoped the new administration would de-escalate the war on drugs. As Dave Weigel noted earlier today, Holder pushed for stiffer marijuana penalties when he was the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, and the details are strikingly at odds not only with Obama's signals regarding marijuana but with his opposition to long sentences for nonviolent drug offenders. According to a December 1996 report in The Washington Times excerpted at TalkLeft, Holder wanted "minimum sentences of 18 months for first-time convicted drug dealers, 36 months for the second time and 72 months for every conviction thereafter." He also wanted to "make the penalty for distribution and possession with intent to distribute marijuana a felony, punishable with up to a five-year sentence." The D.C. Council made the latter Holder-endorsed change in 2000. Holder thought New York City's irrational, unjust crackdown on pot smokers was a fine idea and worth emulating, saying "we have too long taken the view that what we would term to be minor crimes are not important." His rhetoric on the seriousness of marijuana offenses was indistinguishable from that of the most zealous Republican drug warrior:
The truth of the matter is that marijuana is a significant problem for the city....Crack cocaine still drives most of the violence in this city, but marijuana violence is increasing. We need to nip it in the bud.
Four years later, when he was the deputy attorney general, Holder talked up the Clinton administration's alleged drug war victories during a weekly briefing (also quoted by TalkLeft):
We've made some major inroads in the drug problem but we don't have—I mean, if you think back there was a Time magazine article I remember on—a cover story on cocaine and—this was sometime back in the late '80s—and at that point, I remember reading the article and the article seemed to indicate that, you know, it was [a] drug being used by the middle class and that there were not many consequences for that use. We obviously know that that is not true now....
Certainly, I think, as opposed to the late '80s and the early '90s, I think consumption is down.
Holder's memory was a little fuzzy. According to the Monitoring the Future Study (which I'm using because it provides comparable data throughout the period), illegal drug use among teenagers was substantially higher in 2000 than in the early 1990s. In 2000 nearly 25 percent of high school seniors reported past-month use of an illegal drug, compared to 16.4 percent in 1991. It's hard to believe Holder was not aware of this trend, since it was the focus of Republican claims that the Clinton administration was soft on drugs.
And what Time cover story did Holder have in mind? Presumably it was this one, which appeared in July 1981, not "the late 1980s":
Contrary to Holder's gloss, the story is replete with warnings about cocaine's hazards. The subhead reads: "The 'all-American drug' has hit like a blizzard, with casualties rising." Here is the last sentence of the nut graph: "Largely unchecked by law enforcement, a veritable blizzard of the white powder is blowing through the American middle class, and it is causing significant social and economic shifts no less than a disturbing drug problem."
Holder's confusion about the date when this allegedly cocaine-friendly story appeared is significant because it erroneously places the article in the middle of the first Bush administration, with the implication that Clinton has been more serious about fighting the war on drugs (a laughable notion to anyone who remembers George H.W. Bush's apocalytpic baggie-of-crack speech or the zealousness of his drug czar, William Bennett). But the article actually appeared less than six months into the Reagan administration, when the pharmacological naivité Holder claims it displayed could be seen as residue from the Carter era, soon to be washed away by Reagan's enthusiastic prosecution of the drug war. In short, Holder's false anecdote about the Time cover story, along with his bogus claim about drug use trends, suggests he epitomizes the Clinton administration's desperation to prove that a Democrat who used to smoke pot can too be tough on drugs—precisely the motivation that could make Obama just as bad on drug policy as the current administration, if not worse.
Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. | November 20, 2008, 11:14am | #
RE: Opposition to the Appointment of Mr. Eric Holder as Attorney General of the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) for His Past Collusion with the Judicial Branch in violation of Separation of Power and the Rights of Citizens.
Greetings:
As an old Progressive Republican who after Name and Watergate worked as an appointee in both the Carter and Reagan Administrations-before the era after 1983 of divisive politics-I have been a strong supporter of President-elect Obama. However, I oppose the appointment of Mr. Eric Holder for two main reasons:
First, Mr. Eric Holder as part of DOJ has a record which subscribes to the collusion of DOJ with the Judicial Branch in violation of the rights of citizens, and the mandate of separation of power.
During the past 32 years that I have conducted federal civil rights litigation on behalf of resident and nonresident Hispanics1-Mr. Eric Holder was in DOJ and as a Beltway attorney worked with the Judicial Branch to make the government less accountable. Thus, if he is appointed and gets Senate approval, the policy of DOJ will be to permit less and less right and ability of citizens to control abuse of government and its employees. The evidence confirms during the past 32 years that Courts, DOJ and the Bar have made it almost impossible to make the government accountable by use of both Civil Rights and Watergate legislation. Query--Who can now afford to sue the government for malfeasance, even if one could find a lawyer willing and able to do so? This is no accident. Also, the Bush Administration’s disregard for the Rule of Law was no anomaly, but in fact consistent with past DOJ policies under Mr. Eric Holder.
To understand the magnitude of the problem that the citizens are confronted with by DOJ’s policy of the violation of separation of power by collusion with the Courts,2 I suggest for your reading, The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion, by John Fitzgerald Molloy. St. Paul, Minn.: Paragon House,* and a recent article, “How to Save the Courts” by Justice Sandra Day O’Conner, Parade Magazine, February 24, 2008.
Second, Mr. Eric Hoder is a defendant in a civil RICO action for violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1204, and 1513.
The evidence confirms that in his capacity as a Beltway attorney and lobbyist he has been the linchpin in a criminal conspiracy by government employees to deprive my Son of his civil rights as a U.S. citizen, obstruct my rights as a parent, and injure, stigmatize, and deprive me of my right as an independent civil litigation attorney in retaliation for my for petitioning Congress, litigating to enforce my federal statutory rights as a parent to compel DOJ to comply with their duty under the Hague Convention on Missing and Abducted Children and Virginia’s Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act VA Code § 20-124.1 et seq., [See http://home.earthlink.net/~isidoror], and for my past 30-year federal civil litigation against the unauthorized polices and practices of DOJ and the Federal Courts in violation of resident and nonresident Hispanics.
In furtherance of the conspiracy Mr. Eric Holder did file a fraudulent bar complaint with the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”), complaining of my litigating to enforce federal rights. However, his actions were in violation of Federal criminal law. Also, it uncovered evidence that the Supreme Court of Virginia usurped the mandate of separation of power and the authority granted only to the General Assembly under the Constitution of Virginia to crate courts-of-record. Thus, the evidence is that the VSBDB is without judicial authority or jurisdiction to revoke any attorneys license, and its order as to me is void as issued by a kangaroo court.3 [see Petition for Impeachment of members of Supreme Court of Virginia et al., dated June 2007, http://www.petitiononline.com/RDL/petition.html, and see also http://best-lawyer.tistory.com/entry/Isidoro-Rodriguez-Civil-Rights-LawyerFAMILY-LAW].
However, because of the far reaching political implications of holding Mr. Eric Holder et al. Accountable for their criminal acts, the Federal Courts since 2007 have “stonewalled” by denying demands for a RICO jury trial, refused to comply with the Void Order Doctrine, denied access to an impartial court to compel DOJ protect me as a victim pursuant to the mandate of 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a), and denied me of the right to sue for damages under RICO for malfeasance based on holding absolute Judicial and Executive immunity from tortious and criminal liability and lack of venue in D.C. to challenge the criminal acts initiated there by Mr. Eric Holder, Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Editor in Chief, Legal Times, et al., Petition for Writ of Certiorari, US S Ct. Docket No. 08-411, filed on September 28, 2008. See In re Isidoro Rodriguez, Petition for Writ of Mandamus, US S Ct. Docket No. 08-339, September 15, 2008, to compel the federal courts to comply with the 18 U.S.C. § 3771; and Isidoro Rodriguez v. Hon. Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr. Chief Justice , Supreme Court of Virginia, et al., Petition for Writ of Certiorari, US S Ct. Docket No. 08-574, field October 30, 2008.
Consequently, to prevent a blot the fledgling Obama/Biden Administration I oppose any hasty appointment Mr. Eric Holder before requiring an investigation of the evidence of malfeasance and my allegations.
At this critical time when the to restore integrity and public confidence in DOJ., we as citizens to protect our rights under this Republic must comply the complying with the word proclaimed on the Robert F. Kennedy Justice Department Building in, “No Free Government Can Survive That Is Not Based on The Supremacy of Law. Where Law ends, Tyranny Begins, Law Alone Can Give Us Freedom”
Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq.
Law Offices of Isidoro Rodriguez
Mobil: 703.470.1457 Email: isidoror@earthlink.net
Web: http://www.4jobs.com/1114836
Web: http://justiciaportodo.webs.com
1After I argued and won a Federal Tort Claim Act action, Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995), the Legal Times confirmed that I was the only know active U.S. license federal litigation sole practitioner residing outside of the U.S. and litigating in Federal Courts on behalf of resident and nonresident Hispanics, i.e. I have: (i) represented 360 nonresident Hispanic women in Class action Breast Implant Cases; (ii) litigated to stop the seizing of all nonresident Hispanic surnamed accounts in the United States as violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Bank Secrecy Act, and the Right to Financial Privacy Act, Lopez v. First Union, 129 F3.rd. 1186 (11th Cir. 1997); and, (iii) litigated against the issuance of the Constitutional prohibited bill of attainders against nonresident Hispanics.
2In a review of The Fraternity, Dennis DeConcini, U.S. Senator (Ret), stated regarded the violation of separation of power by the Judicial Branch that"...it is very clear...that the Courts in our judicial system have, in fact, become the lawmakers, when it is very clear...that our Constitution delegated that responsibility to the Congress of the United States and the State Legislatures....treads on almost sacred ground when he gives his readers the real insight into how the legal profession has truly changed from being one of the premier professions in our society to a business where the number one objective or bottom line is financial profit..." (Emphasis added).
3“Kangaroo court.” . . . 2. A. Court or tribunal characterized by unauthorized or irregular procedures, . . . . 3. A sham legal proceeding. . . .‘” Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, at page 382 (8th ed., 1999). Emphasis added.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
