We get a visit from a prosecutor

Posted on November 7, 2005 by Pete Guither

An Assistant District Attorney from New York stopped by Drug WarRant and dropped a comment on the item below:

I think that unfortunately these “life sentences” we hear so much about are blown completely out of proportion by people who have some sort of agenda to advance. There’s some detail at http://thepeopleareready.blogspot.com/2005/10/if-you-cant-do-time.html although I find that a lot of people don’t want to hear the truth.
[Sure, I’ll give his new blog the free plug.]

Um, yes, I have an agenda I wish to advance. I’ve been fairly clear about that. I want to end the ineffective and destructive drug war that’s been waged against the American people and find alternativess to a prohibition scheme that increases black market profits and encourages corruption in government. However, I’m not sure about this notion of life sentences being “blown completely out of proportion.”
The Garrison Keillor post referenced noted: “As a result, a marijuana grower can land in prison for life without parole while a murderer might be in for eight years.” How is that blown out of proportion? It doesn’t say that all or most drug infractions are life sentences, but it says that it’s possible. That’s the truth, and it’s a horrific travesty. I don’t care if nobody gets a life sentence — the fact that such a sentence is even on the books for growing a relatively harmless plant is morally and intellectually wrong and should be clear to anyone with half a brain.
Our prosecutor, in the post on his website, oddly complains about people over-generalizing from limited examples and then goes and attempts to counter by using only one anecdotal case.
I have never indicated that most people get life sentences, or even double-digit sentences, but the numbers show that we are incarcerating a ton of people for a very long time for drug offences. Why is it that over half of federal inmates and more than 20% of state inmates are in for drug offences? This is appalling. In New York, it’s worse than the average for the other states — in 1980, 11% of those in prison were for drug felonies; in 2003, it was 38%.
Interestingly, in his attempt to show that the drug laws are not excessive, our prosecutor notes:

An example from one of my own cases, one of the first A-I felony drug sales I prosecuted involved a man who was fairly low on the totem pole, and unfortunately didn’t really have any useful to information to share. He was permitted to plead to an A-II, was sentenced to three years to life, and was out of jail in six months. Six months you ask? How’s that possible? In New York State, non-violent offenders up to a certain age (I believe it’s recently been raised to 46 years old), can enter a program called “shock incarceration”, which is similar to the boot camp programs you hear about sometimes. If successful, they can be out of prison in six months.

So our evidence that drug sentences are not that harsh is that someone who was low on the totem pole was allowed by our compassionate prosecutor to plead down to 3 years to life, and because he was eligible, could participate in shock incarceration to get out earlier.
Whoever, you are, The People, we welcome you to the debate, and hope to hear more from you.
A final note: The title of your post is “If you can’t do the time…” — a nice nod to the old Baretta show, but really irrelevant. The question is not whether people can do the time, but whether the time makes any sense at all.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on We get a visit from a prosecutor

Democrats Fled in the Face of Danger

Posted on November 6, 2005 by Pete Guither

Garrison Keillor takes his own party to task:

We Democrats are at our worst when we try to emulate Republicans as we did in signing onto the “war” on drugs that has ruined so many young lives.

The cruelty of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 is stark indeed, as are the sentencing guidelines that impose mandatory minimum sentences for minor drug possession — guidelines in the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act that sailed through Congress without benefit of public hearings, drafted before an election by Democrats afraid to be labeled “soft on drugs.” As a result, a marijuana grower can land in prison for life without parole while a murderer might be in for eight years.

No rational person can defend this; it is a Dostoevskian nightmare and it exists only because politicians fled in the face of danger.

That includes Bill Clinton, under whose administration the prosecution of Americans for marijuana went up hugely, so that now there are more folks in prison for marijuana than for violent crimes. More than for manslaughter or rape. This only makes sense in the fantasy world of Washington, where perception counts for more than reality.

To an old Democrat, who takes a ground view of politics — What is the actual effect of this action on the lives of real people? — it is a foul tragedy that makes you feel guilty about enjoying your freedom.

This is a message that Democrats need to hear and heed.

[Thanks, jackl]

(Note: The 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act passed the House 392-16 and the Senate 97-2)

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Democrats Fled in the Face of Danger

A small piece of good news in the war on pain patients

Posted on November 6, 2005 by Pete Guither

Thanks to Adam, (and I see that Libby at Last One Speaks has already covered this, but it’s important) —
The Washington Post reported yesterday that the DEA has been stripped of one of its roles:

A House-Senate conference committee yesterday dropped a controversial provision that gave the Drug Enforcement Administration authority to review, and potentially block, the sale of all new prescription narcotics.

The legislation, promoted by Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.) and attached to a multi-department appropriations bill, passed last year with little notice. But this year the Food and Drug Administration, many drug makers and doctors who treat pain patients objected to renewing it, and the provision was stripped from the bill.

Opponents said the provision was an unwarranted intrusion by a law enforcement agency into the FDA’s drug-review system. Pain specialists also said the DEA reviews could jeopardize development of new drugs needed by patients with chronic pain.

Are people waking up? Realizing that the DEA has no business inserting itself in medical issues? I give a significant amount of credit for this to Radley Balko and others who have been reaching a lot of decision makers with their articles about the DEA’s abuses.
(Of course, there are still a lot of roles that we need to strip from the DEA.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on A small piece of good news in the war on pain patients

A new blog!

Posted on November 4, 2005 by Pete Guither

Check out the brand new group blog: DARE Generation Diary (another fine effort from SSDP)
An outstanding group of contributors from a wonderful organization. I expect great things. (The pressure’s on, Tom).

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on A new blog!

Vancouver calls for end to prohibition

Posted on November 4, 2005 by Pete Guither

From Cannabis Culture yesterday:

Today the Vancouver City Council unanimously adopted “Preventing Harm From Psychoactive Substance Use,” a plan that, among other things, calls for an end to prohibition and the regulated distribution of cannabis. […]

The prevention plan covers a wide range of substances. It includes recommendations on legal and currently-illegal substances. Importantly, the plan represents a major push forward on one of Vancouver’s “Four Pillars” of drug policy: prevention. Worthy of note is that the plan’s definition of prevention deems it to be preventing harm, not simply preventing use. In fact, the plan recognizes the human reality that: “Substance use occurs along a spectrum from beneficial, to non-problematic or casual use, through to problematic or harmful use.”

The concept of a spectrum of use is one key part of the underlying philosophy of the plan. Another is the recognition that regulated markets are an essential part of preventing harm to our society. According to the Vancouver Plan: “The intent of creating regulated markets for currently illegal substances is to better control their public availability. Regulated markets support the idea that ‘No drug is made safer left in the hands of organized criminals and unregulated dealers.'”

The full plan is available here (pdf). Now I don’t agree with everything in the plan, but Vancouver is clearly on a strong track, separating use from abuse, recognizing the importance of harm reduction and realizing that prohibition is ineffective.

[Thanks, Tom]
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Vancouver calls for end to prohibition

San Diego supervisors defy voters and state

Posted on November 3, 2005 by Pete Guither

I haven’t commented much on the medical marijuana situation in California recently. It’s a complex situation made much less coherent by the flawed Raich decision (or more accurately, by the federal government’s unwillingness to allow the State of California to administer its own laws regarding the medical needs of its citizens).
Medical marijuana is still the law of the state, and the state is trying to set up procedures to adhere to the law (although that becomes complicated as well — if you set up ID cards to properly handle medical marijuana distribution, does that set the patient up for potential federal harrassment?) The problem is, though, that the conflict between the state and the feds is emboldening some local units of government into disregarding state law — another unsettling and de-stabilizing by-product of a disfunctional federal policy about a relatively harmless plant.
California Senate Bill 420 takes effect in December and sets up a regulated system for medical marijuana and requires all counties to follow the procedures for patient applications, etc. On Tuesday, the San Diego County Supervisors refused:

Flouting state law, county supervisors yesterday refused to implement a program providing identification cards that would help medical marijuana users avoid arrest.

County attorneys warned supervisors that their vote will almost certainly plunge the county into costly and unwinnable litigation.

Their response: Bring it on.

They are breaking state law and therefore potentially subjecting the county residents to cost of large lawsuits simply because they don’t agree with medical marijuana.
And check out this bizarre reasoning:

“After spending thousands and thousands of community enhancement dollars to go after gangs and drug dealers, I think it would be tremendous hypocrisy to vote for this,” Supervisor Bill Horn said. “I look forward to the lawsuit when it happens.”

What’s up, San Diego? How did these idiots become Supervisors? Can you do something about that, please?

[Thanks, nhop and Scott]
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on San Diego supervisors defy voters and state

Pot case up in smoke

Posted on November 2, 2005 by Pete Guither

Link

A low-level drug charge against a Decatur man has been dismissed after evidence was destroyed by the Indiana State Police lab before the trial. State police blamed the error on a miscommunication and said it was an isolated occurrence. […]

Lab employees destroyed the evidence in Huffine’s case after reading a supplemental report written by the trooper, where he had checked off a box indicating that the evidence was of no value and could be destroyed, said Sgt. Rodger Popplewell, state police spokesman. […]

In Huffine’s case, the box ordering the destruction of the evidence was checked accidentally and the lab believed it was OK to destroy it, Popplewell said.

No mention was given as to the method of destruction…

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Pot case up in smoke

Marijuana now legal in Denver… sort of

Posted on November 2, 2005 by Pete Guither

The citizens of Denver, Colorado voted yesterday to make possession of less than an ounce of marijuana non-punishable under city ordinances.
At MPP:

The initiative’s language puts the city on record in support of treating private, adult use and possession of marijuana “in the same manner as the private use and possession of alcohol.

From a practical standpoint, very little changed, as marijuana is still illegal under state law and that’s how arrests would be prosecuted (so Denver residents should not rush out and start smoking pot in public).
However, from a symbolic standpoint, this is pretty big, and something worth celebrating.

“A few years from now, this vote may well be seen as the proverbial ‘tipping point,’ the beginning of the end of marijuana prohibition in the U.S.,” said Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C. “Replacing the failed policy of prohibition with common-sense taxation and regulation of marijuana has become a thoroughly mainstream issue, with the voters of two major U.S. cities endorsing such an approach within one year. Even the Denver Post, which opposed I-100, said in its editorial, ‘We think it probably would be preferable for the state and federal governments to legalize, tax and regulate marijuana use.’

“Last year, there were more than three-quarters of a million marijuana arrests, an all-time record,” Kampia added. “That’s equivalent to arresting every man, woman, and child in the state of Wyoming plus every man, woman, and child in St. Paul, Minnesota. The public understands that this simply makes no sense. Regulating marijuana will take money out of the pockets of criminals and free police to go after violent crime, and the voters of Denver took their first step in that direction today.”

Even if we have to do it one state at a time, one city at a time, or just convince one person at a time, I believe that momentum will eventually build enough to end marijuana prohibition.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Marijuana now legal in Denver… sort of

Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal

Posted on November 1, 2005 by Pete Guither

At TalkLeft…

The Supreme Court heard arguments today in the case of a New Mexican religious sect that wants to be allowed to drink a hallucinogenic tea at ceremonies twice a month.

The justices were critical of the Bush administration’s position that drug laws forbidding such use trumps the right of the sect to practice its religion. John Roberts and Sandra Day O’Connor seemed particularly harsh on the Government. Nancy Hollander of Albuquerque argued for the sect.

At SCOTUSblog:

A small religious band of about 140 adherents, locked in a high-stakes legal battle with federal drug enforcers, appeared on Tuesday to be nearing at least a partial victory in the Supreme Court. The government‰s no-exception, zero-tolerance approach to the religious use of a hallucinogen ran into considerable skepticism among the Justices. Only one, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, seemed ready to go most of the way to support the government side.

As far as I’m aware, this is one of the two most important drug war-related cases of this term (the other being Gonzales v. Oregon).
Now this one also has freedom of religion issues, so it isn’t strictly drug war, but it does relate to how absolute the power of the federal government is in the area of drug control. Any chinks in their armor would be a good sign.
Will it be a 4-4 tie? Make your predictions here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal

Early reports on Alito not promising

Posted on October 31, 2005 by Pete Guither

I’m trying to get a little bit of an early handle on our new Supreme Court nominee. What I’ve seen hasn’t been exactly reassuring.
First thing I saw was this rather sensational item:

Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home.

Turns out after actually reading the entire decision that it was much more complex than indicated in the blurb and involved some technicalities. I wouldn’t say that I agree with Alito’s reasoning in the case, but it’s not as over the top as it seems.
However, then there’s this report at USA Today.

Lawrence Lustberg, a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer who has known Alito since 1981 and tried cases before him on the Third Circuit, describes him as “an activist conservatist judge” who is tough on crime and narrowly construes prisoners’ and criminals’ rights. “He’s very prosecutorial from the bench. He has looked to be creative in his conservatism, which is, I think, as much a Rehnquist as a Scalia trait,” Lustberg says.

That’s very scary.
Lustberg, however, loses a point with me in his use of the phrase “prisoners’ and criminals’ rights.” I hope he’s not referring to the 4th Amendment there, because the 4th Amendment is not criminals’ rights, but rather citizens’ rights and the rights of the accused (both guilty and innocent). (In fact, the only part of the bill of rights that is specifically for “criminals’ rights” is part of the 8th Amendment.) It really disturbs me to hear basic core American rights and principles referred to as “criminals’ rights.”
TalkLeft has a lot more on Alito’s ‘prosecutorial’ approach.
I’m going to keep looking (and please send me anything you find about his drug war views), but I’m not hopeful.
All the more reason to concentrate on changing the lawmakers.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Early reports on Alito not promising