Drug WarRant

In tomorrow’s New York Times: Long Term in Drug Case Fuels Debate on Sentencing

Weldon H. Angelos, a 25-year-old producer of rap records, will be sentenced Tuesday in federal court in Salt Lake City for selling several hundred dollars in marijuana on each of three occasions, his first offenses. He faces 63 years in prison.

Laws that set mandatory minimum sentences require 55 of the 63 years because Mr. Angelos carried a gun while he sold the drugs [although he did not show or use it].

“It would appear effectively to be a life sentence,” the judge, Paul G. Cassell of Federal District Court there, wrote in a request to the prosecution and the defense for advice about whether he has any choice but to send the man to prison forever.

Judge Cassell noted what the maximum sentences were for other federal crimes:

• Hijacking an airplane: 25 years.
• Terrorist bombing intending to kill a bystander: 20 years.
• Second-degree murder: 14 years.
• Kidnapping: 13 years.
• Rape of a 10-year-old: 11 years.

…

The Justice Department supports mandatory minimums, said Monica Goodling, a spokeswoman.

“Tough but fair mandatory minimum sentences take habitual lawbreakers off the streets, lock up the most dangerous criminals and help ensure the safety of law-abiding Americans,” Ms. Goodling said.

Right.
The Justice Department needs to look up the word “justice,” or perhaps read some Shakespeare.

The quality of mercy is not strain’d,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath; it is twice bless’d;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
‘Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown …
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest god’s
When mercy seasons justice…
consider this,
That in the course of justice none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy,
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy.

– Shakespeare

Mandatory minimums for drug crimes are not equitable, not merciful, not compassionate, not fair, not just, and not smart.

This was a sick, disgusting, and offensive exhibit when the DEA opened it last September in Dallas.

“We worked closely with the New York Police Department and the Port Authority to go to Ground Zero and the Fresh Kills landfill for artifacts,” Mr. Fearns said. “That’s where the exhibit starts, with this reconstruction of elements from New York and the Pentagon and photos from Pennsylvania.”

That’s right. Children’s toys and twisted I-beams. Death and destruction to glorify the DEA.

Read the rest of my original post from last year.
Now, the exhibit opened today at 1 Times Square in New York City. Today. Sick.
A reminder:

While Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida minions were diligently preparing for their murderous mission, the FBI was looking the other way with equal determination. More than twice as many FBI agents were assigned to fighting drugs (2,500) than fighting terrorism (1,151). And a far greater amount of the FBI’s financial resources was dedicated to the war on drugs….

In Phoenix, where the now infamous Ken Williams memo originated, counterterrorism agents complained bitterly about their efforts being given “the lowest investigative priority” by a supervisor who preferred glamorous drug-fighting investigations.

And yes, the DEA was part of the problem. A federal police force aimed at its own citizens instead of focusing resources at protecting the nation.
For them to open Target America: Drug Traffickers, Terrorists and You in Times Square on September 10th is reprehensible.

“bullet” Nikkie at ViceSquad has a couple of posts to check out: Substitution Effect about the latest statistical nonsense from the Department of Health and Human Services, and Let’s Ban Driver’s Licenses about new “study” that shows that driver’s licenses lead to drugs.
“bullet” TalkLeft mentions a study that shows marijuana may be helpful for MS sufferers:

“In the short term-study there was some evidence of cannabinoids alleviating symptoms of multiple sclerosis; in the longer term there is a suggestion of a more useful beneficial effect, which was not clear at the initial stage,” he said.

Jerralyn also has the story of an Oklahoma drug addict who has been charged with first degree murder for giving birth to a stillborn infant. Doctors told police the baby had enough methamphetamine in his system to kill two adults, which begs the question… How much does it take to kill two adults and why didn’t it kill the mother?
“bullet” Baylen at D’Alliance shows that neither the Democratic or Republican platforms show even the glimmer of a clue regarding the drug war. He also give us a preview teaser of the Drug Czar’s appearance in National Review.

I enjoyed speaking at the festival today. Great day for it, and it was nice to see/hear some other speakers talking about civil liberties and drug war-related areas.
If you’re a new visitor, please take a moment to say Hi in the comments section (if they’re working, which is about 75% of the time).

“bullet” You may remember back in July that the Justice Department was trying to get libraries to destroy a series of documents related to asset forfeiture. Seems the Justice Department didn’t want people to know their legal rights. Well, that move backfired and the order has been rescinded.
Now FEAR (Forfeiture Endangers American Rights is working on putting those documents online! This could be very useful for those targeted by forfeiture proceedings and their attorneys.
“bullet” I can’t wait. The National Review is giving Drug Lord Czar John Walters the opportunity to respond to last month’s article by Ethan Nadelmann (full footnoted pdf version) and he accepted. And the National Review is giving Nadelmann rebuttal time as well. All will be posted here at Drug Policy Alliance. Closest thing we’ve had to Walters in a debate. This should be good. Or ugly. Or something.

TalkLeft posted about the case currently in a District Court in Utah (and Orin Kerr at Volokh Conspiracy discusses it some more).
Basically it involves cases where the police swipe your front door knob and test it for microscopic traces of drug residue that might have come from your hand. If it comes up positive, the police use that as probable cause to search your house. The question is whether the the swipe of the doorknob requires a warrant.
The legal question is quite interesting, academically. I lean to the notion that either the doorknob is private, in which case a warrant is needed to test it, or it’s public, in which case there’s no way to know who touched it and a positive test is not justification to search the house.
And I envision a scenario of someone putting some cocaine on their hand and going around grabbing doorknobs of enemies.
When it comes down to it, though, it’s just plain ridiculous that these procedures are even being considered. In my mind, it’s just one more in a long list of indignities (and intrusions on our freedoms) that the American people have been subjected to in the name of this failed war on drugs.
Update: More excellent commentary on this at Farkleberries.

For those of you in Central Illinois, I’m going to be one of the featured speakers at a free festival tomorrow on the Illinois State University quad. The event is called “Who’s Left” and it’s a day-long progressive activism festival, with speakers, bands and information. The event goes from noon until 10 pm, and I’m scheduled to speak at 12:30 pm.
I’ll be talking about the drug war, naturally.

From Students for a Sensible Drug Policy (with assistance from NORML and DRCNet):

Since its inception, our organization has campaigned against a 1998
amendment to the Higher Education Act that denies federal financial aid to
anyone convicted of a drug-related offense, no matter how minor. The
provision is counter-productive and causes enormous harm, particularly to
middle- and low-income students who cannot afford the high costs of
college. Department of Education data indicates that more than 150,000
students have been adversely affected by the provision.

Today, repeal is within our reach. As part of the reauthorization of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Senate will reconsider the ban
on federal financial aid for drug offenders. We just learned that the
vote on ONDCP reauthorization is tomorrow. To make a difference, you must
phone today!

If your Senator is on the Senate Judiciary Committee (below), take one or
two minutes to demand that he or she repeal the ban on federal financial
aid for drug offenders.

• Alabama: Jeff Sessions (R-AL), (202) 224-4124, (202) 224-3149
• Arizona: Jon Kyl (R), (202) 224-4521, fax (202) 224-2207
• California: Dianne Feinstein (D), (202) 224-3841, fax: (202) 228-3954
• Delaware: Joseph Biden (D), (202) 224-5042, fax: (202) 224-0139
• Georgia: Saxby Chambliss (R), (202) 224-3521, fax: (202) 224-0103
• Idaho: Larry Craig (R), (202) 224-2752, fax: (202) 228-1067
• Illinois: Richard Durbin (D), (202) 224-2152, fax: (202) 228-0400
• Iowa: Charles Grassley (R), (202) 224-3744; fax: (202) 224-6020
• Massachusetts: Edward Kennedy (D), (202) 224-4543, fax: (202) 224-2417
• New York: Charles Schumer (D-NY), (202) 224-6542, fax: (202) 228-3027
• North Carolina: John Edwards (D), (202) 224-3154, fax: (202) 228-1374
• Ohio: Mike DeWine (R), (202) 224-2315, fax: (202) 224-6519
• Pennsylvania: Arlen Specter (R), (202) 224-4254; fax: (202) 228-1229
• South Carolina: Lindsey Graham (R) (202) 224-5972, fax: (202) 224-1189
• Texas: John Cornyn (R), (202) 224-2934, fax: (202) 228-2856
• Utah: Orrin Hatch (R), (202) 224-5251, fax: (202) 224-5251
• Vermont: Patrick Leahy (D), (202) 224-4242
• Wisconsin: Herbert Kohl (D), (202) 224-5653, fax: (202) 224-9787
• Wisconsin: Russell Feingold (D), (202) 224-5323, fax: (202) 224-2725

What to say:

Hello, my name is __________ and I’m from __________. I’m calling to ask
Senator __________ to take action tomorrow during the reauthorization of
the Office of National Drug Control Policy and support repeal of the ban
on federal financial aid for drug offenders.

This provision is poorly-designed and causes enormous harm.

(PICK ONE TALKING POINT):

– The ban only affects students from low- and middle-income families who
depend on aid to afford college. Students from wealthier backgrounds who
can afford to pay the full cost of college tuition are unaffected by the
drug provision.

– The ban has a discriminatory impact on minorities. For example,
African-Americans, who comprise 13% of the population and 13% of all drug
users, account for more than half of those convicted of drug possession
charges.

– The ban punishes students twice for the same crime. Students have
already paid whatever price the criminal justice system demands of them.
The provision represents an additional punishment that limits a student’s
ability to get an education.

– The ban will not solve our nation’s drug problem. To limit the number
of deserving students eligible for federal financial aid is
counter-productive. Access to a college education is the surest route to
the mainstream economy and a crime-free life.

I hope that Senator ________ will work to repeal this damaging,
discriminatory ban. Thank you.

More info here. You need to act right away, because this is happening NOW. If you can call, do so first thing in the morning on Thursday if possible. If you have fax capability, do so as soon as you read this. If neither is possible, use this page to send a note (it’s hard to say if emails will get to the Senators in time).
We’ve got to get rid of this horrible provision.
Of course, what I prefer to do is call my senator and tell him not to re-authorize the ONDCP at all, but that won’t happen.

Rich Rawlings with the Illinois Marijuana Party tells us that Illinois H.B. 4868 — a bill creating The Medical Cannabis Act will be discussed in subcommittee on October 4.
If you live in Illinois and one of the following Subcommittee members is your Illinois House Representative:
Mary E. Flowers, Frank Aguilar, Patricia Bailey, Maria Antonia Berrios, Linda Chapa LaVia, Elizabeth Coulson, John A. Fritchey, Deborah L. Graham, Brent Hassert, Constance A. Howard, Carolyn H. Krause, Rosemary Kurtz, Karen May, David E. Miller, Rosemary Mulligan, Ruth Munson, Kathleen A. Ryg, Ricca Slone, Keith P. Sommer, or Ron Stephens, please contact them and ask them to support H.B. 4868.
More information at IDEAL Reform.

From the Columbia Journalism Review, a piece by Mariah Blake: The Damage Done.

It started in fourth grade when his teacher asked him to read aloud. Antwaun stammered, then went silent. “He can’t read because he’s a crack baby,” jeered a classmate. In the cafeteria that day no one would sit near him. The kids pointed and chanted, “crack baby, crack baby.” Antwaun sat sipping his milk and staring down at his tray. After that, the taunting never stopped. Unable to take it, Antwaun quit school and started hanging out at a local drug dealer’s apartment, where at age nine he learned to cut cocaine and scoop it into little glass vials. “Crack baby,” he says. “Those two words almost cost me my education.”

Antwaun finally returned to school and began learning to read a year later, after he was plucked from his parents’ home and placed in foster care. Now twenty, he’s studying journalism at LaGuardia Community College in New York City and writing for Represent, a magazine for and by foster children. In a recent special issue he and other young writers, many of them born to crack addicts, took aim at a media myth built on wobbly, outdated science: crack babies. Their words are helping expose the myth and the damage it has done.

It’s a good piece.
For more on the myth of crack babies, see my earlier piece on the subject. From the comments on that piece, it’s clear that it’s hard for many to accept that the former hype about crack babies was overblown. It’s likely that behavioral issues (that were probably more related to their environment than their exposure to crack) cemented the myth in many peoples’ minds.