Tag: the war on (some) drugs

SCOTUS Will Consider the Constitutionality of the Federal Ban on Gun Possession by Illegal Drug Users

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider the constitutionality of the federal ban on gun possession by illegal drug users. The Trump administration is urging the justices to overturn a ruling in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit deemed prosecutions under that law inconsistent with the Second Amendment unless there is evidence that the defendant handled firearms while intoxicated. Contrary to what the 5th Circuit held, the government’s petition argues that categorically disarming drug users is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”—the constitutional test established by the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

The case, United States v. Hemani, involves a Texas man who was charged with violating 18 USC 922(g)(3), which makes it a felony for an “unlawful user” of “any controlled substance” to receive or possess a firearm. The defendant, Ali Hemani, was the subject of a terrorism investigation that included two searches of the Lewiston, Texas, home he shared with his parents. During the second search, in August 2022, FBI agents found a Glock 19 pistol that belonged to Hemani, along with less than a gram of cocaine and about two ounces of marijuana.

As Amel Ahmed explained in a Reason story about the case last year, the FBI was unable to substantiate its suspicion that Hemani, a native-born U.S. citizen whose parents are from Pakistan, was implicated in financial crimes involving Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The government’s petition nevertheless implies that Hemani is a dangerous character for reasons that extend beyond his recreational drug use. But that allegation is not relevant to the constitutional question raised by the Supreme Court case.

The law that Hemani was charged with violating applies to millions of Americans who pose no plausible threat to public safety, including cannabis consumers, even if they live in states that have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use. The 5th Circuit first questioned the constitutionality of Section 922(g)(3) prosecutions in 2023, when it overturned the conviction of Patrick Darnell Daniels Jr., who was sentenced to nearly four years in federal prison after he was caught with two guns and the remains of a few joints during a routine traffic stop in Hancock County, Mississippi.

Keep reading

Will Trump really attack Venezuela?

It’s ironic that in the same week that President Donald Trump escalated the drug war in the Caribbean by unleashing the CIA against Nicolás Maduro’s regime in Venezuela, the Department of Justice won an indictment against former National Security Adviser John Bolton, the architect of the failed covert strategy to overthrow Maduro during the first Trump administration.

The one thing the two regime change operations have in common is Marco Rubio, who, as a senator, was a vociferous opponent of Maduro. Now, as Secretary of State and National Security Adviser, he’s the new architect of Trump’s Venezuela policy, having managed to cut short Richard Grenell’s attempt to negotiate a diplomatic deal with Maduro. Regime change is on the agenda once again, with gunboats in the Caribbean and the CIA on the ground. What could go wrong?

Donald Trump’s penchant for turning the metaphorical war on drugs into a real one by deploying the U.S. military dates back to his first administration, when he threatened to designate drug cartels as foreign terrorists and proposed launching missiles to blow up drugs labs in Mexico. During the recent presidential campaign, he declared, “The drug cartels are waging war on America—and it’s now time for America to wage war on the cartels.” Apparently, he meant it.

Back in office, he named six Mexican cartels, the Salvadoran gang MS-13, and the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) and ordered the Pentagon to draw up plans for military action against them. Early on, White House officials seriously debated military strikes against cartel leaders and infrastructure inside Mexico, but decided that cooperation with the Mexican government would be more fruitful. Nevertheless, the unusual appointment of a veteran Special Forces military officer to head the Western Hemisphere Affairs office of the National Security Council signaled that Trump was still was serious about resorting to military force to wage the war on drugs.

The focus then shifted to Venezuela. The day before the New York Times broke the story about Pentagon planning for action against cartels, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that the U.S. government was offering a $50 million reward for information leadings to Maduro’s arrest, accusing him of the “use cocaine as a weapon to ‘flood’ the United States.” Trump claimed Maduro was directing Tren de Aragua in “undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the United States,” a claim that the intelligence community concluded was untrue, despite pressure from Trump political appointees to make the estimate conform to Trump’s claim. The two senior career intelligence officers who oversaw preparation of the estimate were summarily fired.

In August, the Trump administration deployed a naval task force to the Caribbean, including three guided-missile destroyers, an amphibious assault ship, a guided-missile cruiser, and a nuclear-powered attack submarine. The following month, U.S. forces began air strikes on vessels allegedly smuggling narcotics in international waters off the Venezuelan coast. When Democrats and some Republicans questioned the legality of summarily killing civilians who posed no immediate threat, Trump informed Congress that he had determined that the United States was in a state of “armed conflict” with unnamed “drug cartels,” whose drug trafficking constituted an attack on the United States. Therefore, traffickers were “unlawful combatants” subject to being killed on sight. Admiral Alvin Holsey, commander of U.S. Southern Command, resigned on Thursday, reportedly because of concerns over the extrajudicial killing of civilians in the air strikes.

Keep reading

Venezuela mobilises troops, militia amid US military buildup in Caribbean

Venezuela is deploying troops along the Caribbean coast and mobilising what President Nicolás Maduro claims is a militia numbering in the millions. The move signals defiance against the largest US military presence in the Caribbean since the 1980s, according to a Wall Street Journal report. 

State media has amplified Maduro’s message, portraying the US as a rapacious, Nazi-like power seeking control of Venezuela’s oil resources. Announcers on television, radio, and social media platforms have emphasised that the National Bolivarian Armed Forces are prepared to repel any invasion, WSJ reports.

Militia and armed forces on display

Footage shows Venezuelan militia members of varying ages navigating obstacle courses, firing rifles, and performing training exercises. The country’s regular armed forces, numbering around 125,000 on paper, were seen marching in formation, moving munitions, and mounting Russian-made jet fighters. 

“The people are ready for combat, ready for battle,” Maduro had told supporters earlier this month. The president has also encouraged recruitment from indigenous communities and called on civilian militias to prepare for possible confrontations with American forces.

Keep reading

Who are the US Army’s elite ‘Night Stalkers’? Trump deploys special ops forces near Venezuela

An elite Army unit capable of inserting some of the American military’s most deadly special operations forces into a fight has been deployed to the Caribbean as President Trump exerts an increasing show of force in Venezuela.

The 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, known as the vaunted “Night Stalkers,” operates attack helicopters like the Army’s MH-60 Black Hawks and small transport helicopters into the most perilous situations. 

Video surfaced earlier this month showing Army Black Hawks and smaller ‘Little Birds” undergoing training in Trinidad, located about 500 miles east of the capital city of Caracas, giving the first hint of the rotary-wing power being readied.

The “Night Stalkers” are able to deposit highly trained fighters, including Navy SEALs, Army Green Berets, or Delta Force personnel, into battle zones. 

Training with such aircraft indicated practice for potential missions battling drug cartels — or even the regime itself — said defense expert Mark Cancian, a retired Marine Colonel now with the Center for Strategic International Studies in DC.

Keep reading

Venezuela regime change means invasion, chaos, and heavy losses

Maximum pressure has long been President Donald Trump’s stance towards the government of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela — he slapped crippling sanctions on the country during his first term — but in recent days the administration has pushed the stakes even higher.

The Caribbean is currently hosting an astonishing quantity of American naval and air assets, including four Arleigh Burke–class destroyers, a guided missile cruiser, an attack submarine, a Marine Amphibious Ready Group, and a flight of F-35 multirole fighters.

These are ostensibly deployed as part of an antinarcotic and drug interdiction operation, but the volume of firepower employed for what is normally a relatively sedate task has created broad suspicion at home and in Venezuela that a military intervention against the Bolivarian Republic is on tap. Maduro recently sent a letter to the United Nations stating that he expected an “armed attack” against his country in “a very short time.”

His concerns have probably not been assuaged by the formation of a new Joint Task Force last week (again ostensibly for anti-narcotics operations) in SOUTHCOM under the II Marine Expeditionary Force, precisely the kind of unit that would be deployed in a Venezuelan military intervention, still less by the recent New York Times report that Trump has authorized lethal covert operations by American intelligence agents within his borders.

The administration has made its interest in removing Maduro quite clear: it views him as the head of a narcoterrorist organization that is responsible for exporting crime, drugs, and illegal immigrants to the United States. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has declared that Maduro is not the legitimate president of the country, due to his government’s obvious falsification of results in the 2024 election, and the Justice Department doubled the bounty for his capture to $50 million.

But while Maduro is, without a doubt, a usurper of the presidential office and a tyrannical dictator, he is no less the president and head of state of Venezuela. Ideological harangues about the sanctity of democracy will no more remove him from power or render his government moot than American disapproval of the Chinese Communist Party could affect the democratization of Red China, something both sides are well aware of. Removing Maduro will require more than sanctions, threats, or pressure: it will require war, and that possibility looks increasingly likely with each passing day.

While ending Maduro’s dictatorship would certainly be a boon to the Venezuelan people, the intervention comes with a number of costs and risks American policymakers should bear in mind and carefully weigh against the potential benefits of intervention. There is no free lunch in geopolitics.

The most obvious costs are those of the initial invasion. The American invasion of Panama in 1989, to overthrow the government of General Manuel Noriega, was carried out by a force of some 27,000 U.S. troops, 23 of which were killed and hundreds more wounded. Venezuela is vastly larger than Panama, and while its military is very poorly equipped, it likewise dwarfs the forces that were available to Noriega. The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimates an invasion of Venezuela would require nearly 50,000 troops, some of which will not return home. Any American government should be extremely conscientious about the causes on which it spends the lives of American soldiers.

Keep reading

Bipartisan senators to force vote blocking ‘unauthorized war’ in Venezuela

A group of bipartisan senators will force a vote on a War Powers Resolution to block the use of force by American troops within or against Venezuela after President Trump raised the possibility of attacks against Nicolás Maduro’s regime.

The measure is being led by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) are co-sponsors. 

Trump said Wednesday he had authorized the CIA to carry out covert operations inside Venezuela, saying he was focused on “land” operations and raising the specter the president is looking to remove Maduro from power.  

“The American people do not want to be dragged into endless war with Venezuela without public debate or a vote. We ought to defend what the Constitution demands: deliberation before war,” Paul said in a statement. 

The effort marks the second time senators have sought to block Trump’s buildup of force in the Caribbean Sea. A vote on a War Powers Resolution last week failed 48-51, although it garnered support from Paul and one other Republican, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska).

“Americans don’t want to send their sons and daughters into more wars—especially wars that carry a serious risk of significant destabilization and massive new waves of migration in our hemisphere,” Kaine said in a statement. 

“If my colleagues disagree and think a war with Venezuela is a good idea, they need to meet their constitutional obligations by making their case to the American people and passing an Authorization for Use of Military Force. I urge every senator to join us in stopping this Administration from dragging our country into an unauthorized and escalating military conflict.”

Keep reading

Maryland Police Get ‘Overwhelming’ Number Of Volunteers To Smoke Marijuana And Eat Free Lunch At DUI Training For Officers

Police in Ocean City, Maryland say they received an “overwhelming” number people who want to volunteer to smoke marijuana and drive a vehicle in a controlled setting for DUI recognition training purposes—with the added promise of a free lunch for participants.

Just seven hours after the Ocean City Police Department (OCPD) posted on Facebook that they were soliciting volunteers for the cannabis-impaired driving exercise, the agency on Tuesday followed up by advising the public that they had more than enough sign-ups and would not be accepting additional applications.

The department’s original post said they would be partnering with Cannabis Green Lab for the annual Maryland Highway Safety Office (MHSO) Zero Deaths DUI Conference. OCPD said it was looking to recruit 12-14 volunteers “to smoke cannabis for educational purposes while officers learn to recognize cannabis impairment.”

“The Green Lab helps both officers and participants better understand the effects and levels of impairment caused by cannabis, all in a safe, controlled setting,” it said.

Participants who are ultimately selected will need to bring their own cannabis to smoke prior to the driving exercise—but OCPD said the department will be providing free lunch to volunteers courtesy of MHSO.

Of course, driving while impaired is illegal in states that have legalized cannabis and in those that still maintain criminalization, so OCPD advised that a shuttle service will be available for participants when the exercise (and lunch time) is over.

“We’ll have about 40 student officers participating, so it’s a great way to help train the next generation of law enforcement safely and responsibly,” the department said.

Marijuana Moment reached out to OCPD for an estimate of how many sign-ups it received prior to closing the application window, but a representative was not immediately available.

Keep reading

Three In Four American Voters Want Hemp To Stay Legal, With Enhanced Regulations, Poll Finds

American voters across the political spectrum are broadly supportive of keeping consumable hemp products legal and implementing certain regulations to ensure public safety and prevent youth access, according to a new poll.

The survey from McLaughlin & Associates, which was commissioned by the Hemp Industry & Farmers of America (HIFA), comes amid increased debate in Congress and state legislatures around the country about how to navigate laws around consumable hemp products, which were federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill that President Donald Trump signed in his first term.

Overall, 72 percent of respondents said they want to see hemp maintain its legal status under federal law, along with “new safety and licensing regulations.” Notably, Republicans were most supportive at 77 percent, compared to Democrats (71 percent) and independents (68 percent).

The question posed to voters didn’t simply ask about keeping hemp legal, however, so it’s unclear what percentage back the status quo or are swayed by the possible addition of new regulations. It asked: “Would you support or oppose a federal law continuing to allow the sale and possession of consumable hemp-based products with new safety and licensing regulations to protect children and adult consumers, including age restrictions for adult use only, school free zones, and increased transparency like clear health and warning labels.”

Given that those are generally popular regulatory policies, it’s less surprising that such strong bipartisan majorities would voice support for a legal framework for the cannabis crop.

Asked about the specific regulatory proposals individually, 87 percent said they want child-proof packaging, 86 percent want to limit sales to adults 21 and older, 81 percent said there should be marketing restrictions to prevent appealing to youth and 71 percent said hemp products shouldn’t contain any “unnatural psychoactive substances.

The survey “illustrates big support to pass federal legislation to continue to allow the sale and possession of consumable hemp-based products with new, commonsense safety regulations,” a polling memo says.

Further, the poll found that 55 percent of respondents would be more likely to support a political candidate who voted in favor of maintaining the legal status of hemp with enhanced regulations. That includes 62 percent of Republicans, 53 percent of Democrats and 48 percent of independents.

Keep reading

Florida Officials Are Revoking Medical Marijuana IDs From Patients And Caregivers With Drug Convictions Under Law Signed By DeSantis

Florida medical marijuana officials are actively revoking the registrations of patients and caregivers with drug-related criminal records.

The policy is part of broad budget legislation signed into law earlier this year by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R). The provisions in question direct the state Department of Health (DOH) to cancel registrations of medical marijuana patients and caregivers if they’re convicted of—or plead guilty or no contest to—criminal drug charges.

The measure says a patient or caregiver will have their registration immediately suspended upon being charged with a covered state drug crime, and the suspension will remain in place until the criminal case reaches a final disposition. DOH officials have authority to reinstate the registration, revoke it entirely or extend the suspension if needed.

Bobbie Smith, director of the Florida Office of Medical Marijuana Use (OMMU), told lawmakers on Wednesday that regulators are already banning people from the medical cannabis program under the new policy.

OMMU has “identified 20 individuals that meet the new requirement for revocation, and there’s roughly 140 that we’re still monitoring as they wait make their way through the criminal justice system,” she said at a hearing of the House Health Professions & Programs Subcommittee in comments first reported by Florida Politics.

Under the law, authorities are required to revoke a person’s registration if the patient or caregiver “was convicted of, or pled guilty or nolo contendre to, regardless of adjudication, a violation [of state drug law] if such violation was for trafficking in, the sale, manufacture, or delivery of, or possession with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver a controlled substance.”

The enacted version of the legislation focuses specifically on production and distribution. It does not contain an earlier restriction from prior versions that would have also revoked registrations for people who merely purchased illegal drugs, including more than 10 grams of marijuana for their own use.

It also clarifies that patients and caregivers have a process to request their registrations be reinstated. That involves submitting a new application “accompanied by a notarized attestation by the applicant that he or she has completed all the terms of incarceration, probation, community control, or supervision related to the offense.”

It’s not clear from the plain language of the revised bill whether it will impact only future criminal cases involving medical marijuana patients and caregivers or whether DOH would need to review the records of existing program registrants and revoke registrations of an untold number of Floridians with past drug convictions.

Keep reading

Ohio Senate Passes Marijuana DUI Bill Aimed At Protecting Drivers Who Aren’t High Behind The Wheel From Prosecution

The Ohio Senate unanimously passed legislation last week to overhaul the way that prosecutors must prove whether a person was driving under the influence of marijuana.

Ohio, like most the rest of the nation, has liberalized its marijuana laws over the past decade, now allowing recreational and medical use of the drug in a variety of forms.

This has posed a tricky challenge of setting a legal standard that prohibits driving while under the influence of marijuana, while not ensnaring people who are sober on the road but have used the drug in the past few days.

And unlike with alcohol’s well established limit of .08 percent of blood alcohol content as the legal threshold for impaired driving, the science around cannabis concentration in the blood is far murkier. Some people with high concentrations wouldn’t exhibit behavioral signs of impairment, while some people with low concentrations would, studies show.

“The current law allows for the conviction of innocent people, 100 percent straight out,” said Tim Huey in an interview, who lobbied for the bill on behalf of fellow DUI defense attorneys.

What the bill would do for drivers of accused of being high

Senate Bill 55, if agreed to by the Ohio House and the governor, would bring two big changes for people accused of driving while high. For one, it ends prosecutors’ current ability to convict drivers for driving under the influence based solely on the presence of marijuana “metabolites” in a person’s system.

Metabolites are the non-psychoactive byproduct of marijuana produced as the body breaks down (metabolizes) marijuana. Those metabolites can linger in a person’s system as long as 30 days after use, according to researchers and defense attorneys who support the bill.

Instead, police and prosecutors must show the presence of Delta 9-THC, the active ingredient that produces the high sensation.

The legislation also gives people accused of driving while high an opportunity to rebut the evidence against them if a comparatively lower concentration of marijuana is detected in their systems. That’s opposed to the “per se” system in current law, where a positive drug test almost guarantees a conviction.

“Basically right now we’re testing inactive metabolites, mostly through urine, and it’s really not accurate,” said Sen. Nathan Manning, a Lorain County Republican and former prosecutor who has pushed the legal change for years. “The inactive metabolites don’t show impairment, it just shows whether or not you used it [in the past].”

Several sources described the legal thresholds set in the legislation as the product of more art than science, and a compromise between prosecutors and defense attorneys who lobbied the bill.

Keep reading