Home / Crime Policy
In New Jersey, one of the few states that has refused to supply clean needles to heroin addicts, the majority of new AIDS cases result not from sex but from sharing needles.
To Joseph F. Vitale, a Democrat from Woodbridge who sponsored the unsuccessful bill in the Senate, New Jersey is dancing on the edge of public health disaster. "You have thousands of people who use needles regularly, and they share them with their friends," Mr. Vitale said. "In the end, what happens is the spread of AIDS has reached critical levels."
The Health Department estimates that nearly half of the state's intravenous drug abusers are already infected with H.I.V. and even more with the potentially deadly hepatitis C.
New Jersey has the 5th highest AIDS rate in the country. It is the only state where the drug use is the predominant cause of the disease. As long the state's citizens continue to elects legislators with beliefs like this one about needle laws, it's likely not going to change:
Some think it is wrong for the Legislature to take action that condones illegal drug use and are uncomfortable with the message that such a messure would send. "I don't believe the government should encourage illegal behavior and I believe that is what this law would do," said Assemblyman Michael J. Doherty, a Republican from Warren County.
[Title of post from Neil Young's song, The Needle and the Damage Done]
No, you didn't misread the title of this post. We are praising newly elected San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris who was sworn in today. From her remarks to the people of San Francisco:
We also need to reject simplistic, reactive public policies. It takes more than building prisons and locking away prisoners to keep our city safe. As district attorney, I will not use three-strikes enhancements unless the third strike is a violent or serious felony; nor will I ever ask for the death penalty. (emphasis our's.)
An expose of how Minnesota cops turned a small time hustler and snitch into a big time entrepeneur.
"It is overall a bad policy to rely upon informants to make your case, primarily because they get paid to send people to jail," says the Drug Policy Allliance's Bill Piper. "And so they have an incentive to manufacture evidence, which is what we're seeing around the country. It's endemic to the drug war. We've become a nation of informants, actually." If the federal government does keep the Byrne grants, Piper's organization would like to see the law rewritten to require that states receiving the grants demand corroboration of all evidence obtained from informants.
What poetic justice. The advertising agency Ogilvy & Mather, creator of the obsequious anti-drug ads for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, have been charged with conspiracy for overbilling the Government:
Thomas Early, the agency's director of finance, and Shona Seifert, who formerly directed Ogilvy's $684-million contract with the government, were accused in U.S. District Court of directing employees to exaggerate their work on the project when they filled out time sheets. They also allegedly caused the company to submit false vouchers to support the inflated labour costs, according to the indictment.
The overbilling occurred as the agency worked on a national media campaign for the Office of the National Drug Control Policy, a branch of the executive office of the U.S. president, the government said. [link via Drug War Rant]
Our previoius thoughts on the ads, in particular, those that played during the Superbowl, are here .
[comments now closed]
Why are federal officials prosecuting people for importing lobster tails in plastic bags instead of cardboard boxes? Or because a small percentage of the lobsters in a particular shipment were less than 51/2 inches in possible violation of Honduran law? Law Prof Ellen Podgor and Heritage Senior Research Fellow Paul Rosenweig ask: Have we won the war on terror or the drug war? Why the waste of resources? Read their op-ed in today's Washington Times, Bum Lobster Rap:
Four people, caught in the government's net, face as many as eight years in prison because U.S. officials have decided to prosecute them for alleged violations of the Lacey Act, which permits the government to indict individuals for importing "fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of ... any foreign law." On top of that, the government seized the entire shipment — more than $4 million worth of lobsters.
To make matters worse, federal prosecutors tacked on charges of smuggling, money laundering and conspiracy. The lobsters were "smuggled" in plastic bags for all to see. The proceeds from the sale of the lobsters were "laundered" because they were deposited in a bank. And the "conspiracy" charges attach because it takes more than one person to run a lobster boat.
The U.S. government thinks Honduran law was violated. Honduras doesn't agree.
The attorney general of Honduras wrote to Attorney General John Ashcroft to tell him there is no violation, and Honduran officials have filed a "friend of the court" brief in U.S. courts to explain what Honduran law says on the matter.
So what gives? Two things. Federal prosecutors have too much power and there is an overcriminalization of conduct in this country.
The real problem is overcriminalization. Members of Congress continue to pass criminal laws to impress their constituents. According to a 1999 study by the American Bar Association, there are more than 3,000 federal criminal offenses on the books, more than 40 percent of were enacted since 1970. (Although the Lacey Act was passed in 1900, its reach was expanded in 1981.)
Chances are, Americans would prefer federal law enforcement officials to spend their time on terrorism, drug trafficking and corporate corruption. With the amount of crime we have today, we simply can't afford to have them play lobster police.
Drug WarRant has a lot of great stuff Monday--from pain doctors criticizing the drug warriors to the Rocky Mountain News railing on the DEA:
Oh, it's good to be the king. You float high above the law and plunder your subjects with impunity.
To the link to the transcript of last night's mandatory minimum segment on 60 minutes. A sample:
"Judges throughout the country, of all political persuasions, feel that they have to have discretion so that they can do justice in the individual cases," says Martin, who is resigning from the bench.
"It is unjust. It's taking people who are low-level violators and putting them in jail for 15-20 years. I had a situation where a defendant was an addict. He sat on his stoop. People came to him and said, 'Do you know where I can buy some crack?' He told them about an apartment where there was crack being sold. For this, the people who sold it every once in a while gave him some crack for his own personal use. The guideline range for that man was 16 years in jail. That doesn't seem to me like justice."
We hope you are reading the Rant every day. We do.
Remember the Stratford High school drug raid in Goose Creek where agents pulled their guns and no drugs were found? The principal has resigned. Calling it "instant karma," Last One Speaks has the latest.
It's always different when it happens to you. After a bout with prostate cancer, Wisconsisn Republican state Representative Gregg Underheim has decided to buck the party leadership and introduce a bill to allow doctors to prescribe medical marijuana.
[thanks to TChris who's back from vacation for sending this in. We're hoping TChris will decide to blog some more for TalkLeft when he has time. Our wrist still needs the reprieve.]
Update: Another conservative with personal experience: Richard Brookhiser, senior Editor of the National Review who testified at the same congressional hearing on marijuana that we did in 1996. You can read his testimony here (pdf).
Don't miss NORML's 2003: The Year In Review with the top ten events that shaped marijuana policy. We think #4 may be the most significant for the future:
Supreme Court Says Doctors Can Recommend Medicinal Marijuana:
The Supreme Court in October declined to review a unanimous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding the rights of physicians to discuss the medicinal use of marijuana with their patients. By rejecting the government's appeal, the Court upheld the Ninth Circuit's order enjoining the Justice Department from revoking physicians' federal licenses to prescribe medicine if they recommend marijuana to their patients. Read the full story at:
The DEA has refused to comply with a Colorado state court judge's order to return a medical marijuana patient's 2 ounces of marijuana to him. The patient has a license under Colorado law to possess marijuana. A state search warrant had been issued for his residence, the DEA went along on the search and seized his pot. A misdemeanor criminal case was filed against him in state court and later dismissed, and the judge ordered the DEA to return the pot. Background is here.
Today, the court-ordered deadline for returning the pot, the DEA said it will not return the pot:
"Federal law supersedes state law, and the federal government does not recognize the medicinal use of marijuana," he said.
The man's attorney, Kristopher Hammond, will ask the Judge to hold the DEA in contempt of court.
"There's nothing federal about this case," Hammond said. "The feds can't just steal the marijuana and therefore make it federal property."
Walter in Denver says the DEA's actions are an "unspeakable evil."
It's hard to find printable words to describe these people, so let me just say if there were any justice in this case the DEA agents would be looking at jail time themselves.
We think the DEA is acting under marching orders from Ashcroft. We'll be following the case as it progresses through the various courts of appeal. In the meantime, a bill has been introduced in the House that would provide an affirmative defense to medical marijuana users facing federal pot charges--the Truth in Trials Act. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) will be introducing a similar version in the Senate. Please take two minutes to fax your senators a pre-written letter explaining why it is necessary to provide federal protections to patients and caregivers who use and provide medical marijuana in compliance with state laws. Visit here, enter your address, select a letter, and click a button to send it to your senators.
Coming to your tv screen in January--two shows, 60 Minutes and West Wing, will feature the negative side of mandatory minimum sentences. Leaders of FAMM (Families Against Mandatory Minimums) worked closely with producers of both shows. Set your tivos now.
On Jan. 4, 60 Minutes will air Ed Bradley’s investigation of recent attacks on judicial discretion and the effects of mandatory sentencing. FAMM member Brenda Valencia, who served a 10-year federal mandatory minimum sentence, and Eric Sterling, FAMM board member, were interviewed for the segment.
On Jan. 14, The West Wing will show President Bartlett, just before the State of the Union address, deciding whether to veto a popular piece of legislation because it contains an amendment limiting judicial discretion in sentencing (he decries the “war on judges” being waged by some in Congress.) As a signal of the seriousness of his purpose in opposing long mandatory sentencing, he also considers commuting the sentences of a number of drug offenders, as recommended by the Justice Department. We were told that the episode includes a scene in which the President talks to the president of FAMM (portrayed on the show as a man!) whose sister is serving a mandatory minimum drug sentence. Although we feel our Julie Stewart is the real star, we are thrilled that FAMM is part of the show.
[link via Hit and Run]
Doctors who choose to treat patients in chronic pain by prescribing painkillers are being increasingly subjected to criminal prosecution. Doctors charge they are the target of overzealous prosecutors and DEA agents. The Pain Relief Network is fighting back.
....charges of illegally prescribing prescription narcotics, criminal conspiracy, racketeering and even murder have been brought in dozens of states against scores of doctors who treat chronic pain with prescription narcotics. At least two have been imprisoned, one committed suicide, several are awaiting sentencing, many are preparing for trial, and more have lost their licenses to practice medicine and accumulated huge legal bills.
Their crime, it seems, is that they were supplying their chronic pain patients with sometimes large numbers of prescriptions for controlled but legal medications to treat their pain. The result, the doctors say, is that the established medical use of opium-based drugs for pain is becoming criminalized by aggressive drug agents and zealous prosecutors. Adding to their concern, the official rhetoric has escalated to the point that federal and state prosecutors often accuse arrested doctors of being no different than drug kingpins or crack dealers.
....Some pain doctors are organizing to push back, and in recent months a loose national movement has been formed to contest what some call the "war" being waged against pain doctors, pharmacists and suffering patients. A new group called the Pain Relief Network is organizing a march on Washington in April to protest the prosecutions and has hired an attorney to develop a legal strategy for appealing some of the convictions.
(551 words in story) There's More :: Permalink :: Comments
| << Previous 12 | Next 12 >> |
