Drug WarRant

See the article at Just Say Now with the details.

He does a great job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBV4JprZPTM

One of the huge problems with our criminal justice system now is that sentencing has very little connection to actual benefit to society (particularly with the drug war thrown in).

SentenceSpeak discusses an interesting sentencing factor in Missouri:

It is the first state to provide judges with defendant-specific data on what particular sentences would cost the taxpayers, and on the likelihood that the person in the dock will reoffend.

Experts say Missouri is the only state to distribute an invoice on a case-by-case basis. …

“We’re seeing a trend where judges are asking for more evidence about best practices,” said Greg Hurley, of the National Center for State Courts. “They are looking at an offender’s track record and other predictive data that may show which treatments or programs may work best to cut down on recidivism.”

Stowe asks:

Could this become a new trend in sentencing? Granted, the cost of a sentence shouldn’t be the only factor judges consider, but judges should go into sentencing armed with information that allows them to do a reasoned cost-benefit analysis. That way, judges can help taxpayers spend less on people who don’t need expensive prison terms, and spend more on prison sentences for people who are dangerous or highly likely to reoffend.

I like this, but I think, as a society, we should attempt to go even a step further.

Most of the choices regarding the use of sentencing dollars actually occur before it gets to the judge’s often limited sentencing options. The real abuses of sentencing and lack of attention to cost tend to occur at the level of prosecution (not only in the decision of what sentencing to push for, but also in the discretion of what cases should be prosecuted).

I’ve often dreamed of a day where a District Attorney would have to face the public and defend his or her use of “prison years”:

This year, we reduced the number of prison years sentenced by 6%, saving the taxpayers money, while focusing on the most dangerous criminals. 93% of all prison years went to those convicted of violent crimes, and we reduced the anticipated prison years for those over 50 years old (which are more expensive and less beneficial) by 4%. Our office is committed to providing justice and contributing to public safety in a cost-defensible manner, unlike the past where it was like a contest to get the most sentencing, regardless of cost or value to society.

I’d like to further discuss the earlier post about Alcohol lobby funding the Prop 19 opposition.

First. I like alcohol. I think that alcohol, used responsibly, just like any other drug, has a wonderful place in our society. Personally, I’m a big fan of Tanqueray and Tonic, as well as a variety of top-notch single-malt scotches. I like a Guinness with fish and chips, and once in a while I enjoy experimenting with craft beers. I have no interest in boycotting alcohol because of who or what they fund.

Second. I really have no fundamental objection to the alcohol industry funding opposition to marijuana legalization. From their perspective, that’s just a good business decision. I don’t like it, and it’s not good for consumers, but I support their right to do it.

Here’s the important part. Rather than trying to get the alcohol industry to stop funding legalization opposition, we need to spread the word that alcohol funds legalization opposition.

Here’s why… When people see that alcohol is afraid of marijuana, they’ll make the connection that marijuana legalization will result in a reduction in alcohol use (and possibly in some of the problems associated with alcohol). This is a positive perception change for us.

Additionally, they’ll start to question what the motivations are for others who fund marijuana opposition, such as the Sheriffs and Narcotics officers.

Alcohol is a business. They’re supposed to make decisions based on the bottom line. Law enforcement, on the other hand, is a service to the people that is required to respond to the public benefit, not bottom line.

Law enforcement associations have enjoyed an unfair advantage, because most people assume that they are following their legally mandated mission of public service when they talk about an issue. They don’t understand that the officers are protecting their own bottom line.

The alcohol lobby funding is a blessing for us. It allows us to paint the truth in a way that the people may understand:

Alcohol and Law Enforcement industries naturally oppose legalization because it hurts their revenues.

Press Release from Mike Meno at MPP:

Alcohol Lobby Teams with Law Enforcement to Fund Anti-Marijuana Campaign

California Beer and Beverage Distributors Give $10K to “No On Proposition 19” Campaign in Attempt to Kill the Competition

On September 7, a major new front opened up in the campaign for Proposition 19, the ballot measure to tax and regulate marijuana in California. On that day, the California Beer and Beverage Distributors made a $10,000 contribution to a committee opposing Proposition 19.

The alcohol lobby now joins the other major two funders of the anti-Prop 19 campaign: the California Police Chiefs Association ($30,000) and the California Narcotics Officer’s Association ($20,500). Yep, it’s all about financial self-interest.

It’s no surprise that the alcohol lobby would oppose marijuana legalization — they know very well that marijuana can be an excellent substitute for alcohol for many people (which could dramatically reduce the health costs related to alcohol while reducing the profits to alcohol distributors). It is a bit surprising that they apparently didn’t hide it better.

So, to recap, if you’re opposed to Prop 19, you’re on the side of the narcs, the cartels, the sheriffs, and the booze industry.

Already we have ex-Presidents Vicente Fox (Mexico), Ernesto Zedillo (Mexico), Cesar Gaviria (Colombia), and Fernando Henrique Cardoso (Brasil) calling for legalization and the end of the war on drugs.

Add ex-Premier Felipe Conzalez of Spain to the list.

Spanish ex-premier calls for legalising drugs worldwide

Spain’s former prime minister Felipe Gonzalez Tuesday called for an international treaty to legalise drugs as a way to end the deadly wars between trafficking cartels. […]

Gonzalez, who was Socialist prime minister from 1982 to 1996, noted the consequences of Prohibition against alcohol in the United States in the early 20th century, when gangsters caused “thousands of deaths.”

“When did this violence end? Not when they put the heads of the crime gangs in prison for tax fraud, but when Prohibition ended and the sale of alcohol was legal,” he said.

He acknowleged that “no country can take this decision (to legalise drugs) unilaterally without an extremely serious (political) cost for its leaders.

“What is needed therefore is an international treaty that is respected by all,” he said.

I’m extremely pleased that legalization is getting this degree of international attention and interest. Still, sure would be nice if some leaders would grow a pair while in office.

Marijuana Ballot Measure in California Wins Support of Union, Officials Say (NY Times)

A ballot measure to make California the first state to legalize the sale and use of marijuana has won the support of one of the state’s most powerful union, officials said Monday, offering the proposition a shot of mainstream legitimacy as well as a potential financial and organizational lift.

The decision by the executive board of the Service Employees International Union of California will be announced in the next few days, according to officials who have been briefed about it but were not allowed to speak publicly before it was announced.

That’s a big union. Another powerful voice to add to the mix.

Timing is nice, too.

Check out Media Goes Nuts for Cops Supporting Marijuana Legalization for a taste of the coverage from the press conferences with LEAP. Making some real powerful impact there.

…

And finally, Howard and Misty are on the road again. Cowboy rides through Lodi, pushing legalization of marijuana

While dressed in a cowboy hat, boots and Wrangler jeans, Howard Wooldridge sits on his one-eyed American Paint horse, Misty. He looks like he could be out of a scene from a Western movie. Instead he is waving down traffic at the intersection Cherokee and Kettleman lanes.

Describing himself as a modern-day Paul Revere, Wooldridge, 59, has taken to the streets on horseback to encourage people to vote for Proposition 19, a statewide initiative to legalize pot.

As people drive through the Lodi intersection, they honk horns, give thumbs up, wave coffee cups and cheer.

“A majority of Californians believe the war on drugs is nonsense,” Wooldridge said.

Good for Howard! He and Misty are taking 9 weeks to ride through California and spread the word.

When the recent story came out that nine previous heads of the Drug Enforcement Agency had sent a letter to the Attorney General suggesting that the federal government should sue California if Prop 19 passes, there was one really big thing missing… Sue based on what?

Various media reported about the letter (which you can now read here), but none of them indicated what the legal grounds of the suit would be and whether there was any, you know, validity to those grounds.

Anybody can suggest suing somebody. For example, the person in front of you at the grocery store buys the last bratwurst, and without brats your cookout is ruined. I could suggest that you sue them. I could even get eight friends together and write a letter suggesting that you sue them signed by all nine of us. And you still wouldn’t have any legal justification to sue.

Of course, as you can well guess, there’s really nothing there.

Just Say Now has brought out the big guns to put this nonsense away.

Bruce Fein, member of the Just Say Now advisory committee who served in the Justice Department as Associate Deputy Attorney General under President Reagan, responds:

Nothing in the Constitution requires a state to prohibit as a matter of state law and prosecution what the federal government has chosen to prohibit as a matter of federal law and prosecution. Proposition 19 leaves the power of the federal government to enforce federal prohibitions on marijuana trafficking or use unimpaired. It would be flagrantly unconstitutional for Congress to attempt to force states to enact laws prohibiting under state law conduct that Congress has prohibited under federal law! DEA needs remedial education on the Constitution.

Eric Sterling adds his analysis as well

…they are wrong on the key question regarding the merits of the lawsuit they desire the Attorney General to file. Proposition 19 withdraws California enforcement of its marijuana law which is its Constitutional prerogative. The Supreme Court ruled in the Printz case that Congress cannot “commandeer” state officials to enforcement federal laws. This is different from the Arizona immigration situation in which Arizona sought to authorize state conduct based on federal immigration status, and to create offenses based on federal immigration status. Immigration is explicitly a Federal power in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. Marijuana prohibition is not in the Constitution. Federal power over marijuana is based on the commerce clause. Our law is filled with areas in which there is both federal and state regulation of various aspects of commerce. The Controlled Substances Act, unlike the Federal Communications Act, does not exclude states from regulation.

On its face, Prop. 19 is a completely different concept. Historically, Prop. 19 is akin to the act of the New York legislature repealing its alcohol prohibition law in 1923 which was perfectly lawful and Constitutional.

So the answer is, no, the DEA heads have nothing there.

But Eric also hits on another interesting point.

… this letter is the clearest indication that the drug prohibition establishment recognizes the political attractiveness and unique importance of Prop. 19. I cannot recall any previous collaboration of former DEA Administrators of this kind. If our national marijuana prohibition policy were not so clearly failing and not so close to being replaced with real controls, they would never have mobilized in this way to defend it. If Prop. 19 were not proposing a system of control that is so logical and straight forward that it is widely politically attractive, they would not be mobilizing this kind of collaboration.

I’ve noticed this, too.

There is real fear out there on the part of the prohibitionists. They see Prop 19 as the thread that could start to unravel the entire prohibition regime. If Prop 19 passes and the world doesn’t end/sky doesn’t fall/streets don’t erupt with violence/population doesn’t suddenly become mindless zombies, then why will the public support their prohibition gravy train?

A good day today for Prop 19. The money bomb is getting close to $50,000, and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition has been around the state making important points.

Ventura County Star:

Joseph McNamara, who headed the San Jose Police Department for 15 years, called the ballot measure a potential “game-changer” that would allow police agencies to devote more resources to fighting other crimes and undercut criminal syndicates that are largely funded by illegal marijuana sales.

“Opponents say we should do more of the same of what has not worked for more than a century,” McNamara said in phone call with reporters. “I think we should return some common sense to law enforcement by protecting people from crimes they are concerned about. People are not terrified by pot smokers.”

Also in the Ventura Star:

[retired Orange County Superior Court Judge James] Gray called the campaign for Proposition 19, “Probably the most important election of my lifetime.”

Los Angeles Times:

Gray was joined by former San Jose Police Chief Joseph McNamara in arguing that much of the money flowing to violent drug cartels comes from the illegal sale of marijuana.

Citing White House statistics, McNamara said 60% of cartel money stems from marijuana. Those who argue that a black market would remain aren’t paying attention to history, McNamara said.

After the prohibition on alcohol was repealed, bootleggers disappeared, said McNamara, now a research fellow in drug policy at Stanford University.

And what about those other law enforcement groups?

Active law enforcement groups, including the California Police Chiefs Assn., are opposed to the measure, saying it would increase usage and promote crime. Gray, the retired judge, said he believes that many in law enforcement support legalization but are afraid to say so because of political pressure on the job.

“They have a political job, so they can’t tell the truth,” Gray said. “People are free to speak out honestly only after they are retired.”

Mercury News

Supporters said keeping pot illegal props up drug cartels and overburdens the state’s court system. Stephen Downing, former deputy chief for the Los Angeles Police Department, said the nation’s drug policy has failed, likening it to cutting off the leg of a spider to cripple it.

“The drug organizations are more like starfish,” Downing said during a press conference at a West Hollywood park where children were playing with their parents behind him. “You cut a leg off, it regenerates. We are dealing with a sea of starfish. The only way you kill a starfish is to remove its nutrient. And that nutrient is money.”

Phil Smith at Drug War Chronicle has more on today’s press conferences: Cops Say Yes to California Marijuana Legalization Measure [FEATURE]

The Prop 19 campaign is looking to make a statement (and raise some money) with a money bomb today, Monday, September 13.

Norm Stamper has asked us all to help out with $5 (or more, if you wish). Seemed like a good idea, so I did.

You can, too.

…

This is an open thread.