Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Common Sense at the United Nations
Common Sense for Drug Policy Director of Research Doug McVay is attending the United Nations' Committee on Narcotic Drugs annual meeting in Vienna, Austria this week. Doug is meeting with other NonGovernmental Organization representatives and governmental representatives, discussing international drug control efforts, and promoting intelligent discussion and evidence-based policies.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Renewal Of Deadly Drugs Campaign Feared As New Thai Government Takes Power
Statements by Thai officials have raised fears of a another bloodbath as that nation's so-called "drug war" is renewed. Under former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, more than 2,500 people – only a fraction of whom were involved in drugs – were killed allegedly by police authorities working from official blacklists.
The Ottawa Citizen reported on February 23, 2008 ("Thailand Promises A Deadly Toll During New 'War On Drugs'") that "The new Thai government is to relaunch the country's "war on drugs" which killed more than 2,500 people allegedly involved in the trade. During a three-month killing spree in 2003 as intense as a full-scale armed conflict, thousands named on police "black lists" were shot dead, allegedly on government orders. Yet the government's narcotics control board concluded that more than half the victims had no involvement in drugs. One couple from northeastern Thailand were shot dead after coming into unexplained wealth and being added to a black list. They were, in fact, lottery winners. The campaign was one of the principal policies of Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister and Mr. Samak's political patron, who now lives in exile and owns Manchester City Football Club. 'My government will decisively implement a policy against drug trafficking. Government officials must implement this policy 24 hours a day, but I will not set a target for how many people should die,' said Samak Sundaravej, the new prime minister. The interior minister, Chalerm Yubamrung, said: 'When we implement a policy that may bring 3,000 to 4,000 bodies, we will do it.'"
A recent article in the Bangkok Post provides some background on the Thai drug war. The Post reported on Jan. 31, 2008 ("A New Government, Another War On Drugs"): "'I never thought the Thaksin government's drugs war was successful. In fact it was a failure because it violated people's rights and never brought any big-time drug dealers to justice,' said Angkhana Neelaphaijit, chairwoman of the Working Group on Justice for Peace. Mrs Angkhana, who travels frequently to the deep South to provide legal counselling for Muslim victims affected by the ongoing insurgency there, found information indicating that a dozen Muslim people disappeared without trace during the war on drugs and that local police never carried out proper investigations. Mrs Angkhana said that when she checked with the police, they said the disappearances were linked to drug trade in the area. (Mrs Angkhana is the widow of Muslim lawyer Somchai, who was abducted by persons unknown on March 12, 2004. Though feared dead, his body has not been found; conjecture has focused mainly on foul play involving the police.)"
According to the Post, "Bowing to mounting public pressure, the Thaksin government later appointed a panel led by former deputy attorney-general Praphan Naikowit to look into these deaths, but it could not find anyone responsible. After the military coup of Sept 19, 2006, the junta-appointed government of Surayud Chulanont set up another committee to look into the issue last August, but that panel also failed to gather enough evidence to prosecute people believed involved with the campaign."
In addition, according to the Post, "Min Pothog, a village headman of Ban Nong Sa-no in Sri Samrong district, Sukhothai province, said dozens of young people in neighbouring villages had been shot dead without evidence during the campaign, and no one had been prosecuted for those killings. The bereaved parents had been left to suffer in silence. Bai Jaranil, a defence volunteer from the same village, said the new government should not think of drug suppression as simply a part of the populist policies it announced to attract people's votes. This was an issue that directly involved people's lives. So it should supervise the planned campaign carefully and ensure fairness and justice for those affected."
The Ottawa Citizen reported on February 23, 2008 ("Thailand Promises A Deadly Toll During New 'War On Drugs'") that "The new Thai government is to relaunch the country's "war on drugs" which killed more than 2,500 people allegedly involved in the trade. During a three-month killing spree in 2003 as intense as a full-scale armed conflict, thousands named on police "black lists" were shot dead, allegedly on government orders. Yet the government's narcotics control board concluded that more than half the victims had no involvement in drugs. One couple from northeastern Thailand were shot dead after coming into unexplained wealth and being added to a black list. They were, in fact, lottery winners. The campaign was one of the principal policies of Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister and Mr. Samak's political patron, who now lives in exile and owns Manchester City Football Club. 'My government will decisively implement a policy against drug trafficking. Government officials must implement this policy 24 hours a day, but I will not set a target for how many people should die,' said Samak Sundaravej, the new prime minister. The interior minister, Chalerm Yubamrung, said: 'When we implement a policy that may bring 3,000 to 4,000 bodies, we will do it.'"
A recent article in the Bangkok Post provides some background on the Thai drug war. The Post reported on Jan. 31, 2008 ("A New Government, Another War On Drugs"): "'I never thought the Thaksin government's drugs war was successful. In fact it was a failure because it violated people's rights and never brought any big-time drug dealers to justice,' said Angkhana Neelaphaijit, chairwoman of the Working Group on Justice for Peace. Mrs Angkhana, who travels frequently to the deep South to provide legal counselling for Muslim victims affected by the ongoing insurgency there, found information indicating that a dozen Muslim people disappeared without trace during the war on drugs and that local police never carried out proper investigations. Mrs Angkhana said that when she checked with the police, they said the disappearances were linked to drug trade in the area. (Mrs Angkhana is the widow of Muslim lawyer Somchai, who was abducted by persons unknown on March 12, 2004. Though feared dead, his body has not been found; conjecture has focused mainly on foul play involving the police.)"
According to the Post, "Bowing to mounting public pressure, the Thaksin government later appointed a panel led by former deputy attorney-general Praphan Naikowit to look into these deaths, but it could not find anyone responsible. After the military coup of Sept 19, 2006, the junta-appointed government of Surayud Chulanont set up another committee to look into the issue last August, but that panel also failed to gather enough evidence to prosecute people believed involved with the campaign."
In addition, according to the Post, "Min Pothog, a village headman of Ban Nong Sa-no in Sri Samrong district, Sukhothai province, said dozens of young people in neighbouring villages had been shot dead without evidence during the campaign, and no one had been prosecuted for those killings. The bereaved parents had been left to suffer in silence. Bai Jaranil, a defence volunteer from the same village, said the new government should not think of drug suppression as simply a part of the populist policies it announced to attract people's votes. This was an issue that directly involved people's lives. So it should supervise the planned campaign carefully and ensure fairness and justice for those affected."
Monday, March 3, 2008
Prescription Drug Diversion Is Public Relations Focus Of 2008 Federal Drug Strategy
The 2008 White House drug control strategy was finally released on Saturday, March 1. As expected, no new policy initiatives or innovative approaches are being proposed.
The Los Angeles Times reported on March 2, 2008 ("Bush urges new rules on online sales of addictive prescription drugs") that "President Bush called on Congress on Saturday to pass legislation restricting online sales of powerfully addictive prescription drugs, citing a growing number of overdoses. Bush referred to San Diego teenager Ryan Haight as he unveiled the 2008 national drug control strategy in his weekly radio address. Haight overdosed on painkillers he bought over the Internet, prompting Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to introduce the bill that Bush championed Saturday."
According to the Times, Drug Czar John "Walters praised Mexico and Colombia for their help in targeting traffickers and said they had disrupted the cocaine and methamphetamine supply to the U.S. But he singled out Venezuela for failing to cooperate in drug control efforts. 'We stand ready to work' with Venezuela, Walters said. But he noted that many Venezuelan drug flights appeared to leave from airstrips 'where authorities could take control, but that hasn't been done.' He said that drug traffic appeared to be going increasingly to Africa, Europe and the Caribbean. 'It's a huge danger and a growing danger to Venezuela, to Europe, the Caribbean and the U.S.,' Walters said.
The full strategy documents are available from the ONDCP website. Also, a copy of the spending tables from the larger budget document is available from the CSDP archive.
The Los Angeles Times reported on March 2, 2008 ("Bush urges new rules on online sales of addictive prescription drugs") that "President Bush called on Congress on Saturday to pass legislation restricting online sales of powerfully addictive prescription drugs, citing a growing number of overdoses. Bush referred to San Diego teenager Ryan Haight as he unveiled the 2008 national drug control strategy in his weekly radio address. Haight overdosed on painkillers he bought over the Internet, prompting Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to introduce the bill that Bush championed Saturday."
According to the Times, Drug Czar John "Walters praised Mexico and Colombia for their help in targeting traffickers and said they had disrupted the cocaine and methamphetamine supply to the U.S. But he singled out Venezuela for failing to cooperate in drug control efforts. 'We stand ready to work' with Venezuela, Walters said. But he noted that many Venezuelan drug flights appeared to leave from airstrips 'where authorities could take control, but that hasn't been done.' He said that drug traffic appeared to be going increasingly to Africa, Europe and the Caribbean. 'It's a huge danger and a growing danger to Venezuela, to Europe, the Caribbean and the U.S.,' Walters said.
The full strategy documents are available from the ONDCP website. Also, a copy of the spending tables from the larger budget document is available from the CSDP archive.
New Study Shows One Adult For Every One Hundred Is Behind Bars In US
Another study has been released demonstrating the absurd number of individuals incarcerated in the United States. According to the New York Times on February 29, 2008 ("U.S. Imprisons One in 100 Adults, Report Finds"), "For the first time in the nation's history, more than one in 100 American adults are behind bars, according to a new report. Nationwide, the prison population grew by 25,000 last year, bringing it to almost 1.6 million, after three decades of growth that has seen the prison population nearly triple. Another 723,000 people are in local jails. The number of American adults is about 230 million, meaning that one in every 99.1 adults is behind bars."
The Times reported that "Incarceration rates are even higher for some groups. One in 36 adult Hispanic men is behind bars, based on Justice Department figures for 2006. One in 15 adult black men is, too, as is one in nine black men ages 20 to 34. The report, from the Pew Center on the States, also found that one in 355 white women ages 35 to 39 is behind bars, compared with one in 100 black women. The report's methodology differed from that used by the Justice Department, which calculates the incarceration rate by using the total population rather than the adult population as the denominator. Using the department's methodology, about one in 130 Americans is behind bars."
The Times noted, "The United States imprisons more people than any other nation in the world. China is second, with 1.5 million people behind bars. The gap is even wider in percentage terms. Germany imprisons 93 out of every 100,000 people, according to the International Center for Prison Studies at King's College in London. The comparable number for the United States is roughly eight times that, or 750 out of 100,000."
The Times noted further that "On average, states spend almost 7 percent of their budgets on corrections, trailing only health care, education and transportation. In 2007, according to the National Association of State Budget Officers, states spent $44 billion in tax dollars on corrections. That is up from $10.6 billion in 1987, a 127 percent increase when adjusted for inflation. With money from bonds and the federal government included, total state spending on corrections last year was $49 billion. By 2011, the Pew report said, states are on track to spend an additional $25 billion. It cost an average of $23,876 dollars to imprison someone in 2005, the most recent year for which data were available."
The Times article stated, "The cost of medical care is growing by 10 percent annually, the report said, and will accelerate as the prison population ages. About one in nine state government employees works in corrections, and some states are finding it hard to fill those jobs. California spent more than $500 million on overtime alone in 2006."
A copy of the report, "One in 100," is available from the CSDP research archive.
The Times reported that "Incarceration rates are even higher for some groups. One in 36 adult Hispanic men is behind bars, based on Justice Department figures for 2006. One in 15 adult black men is, too, as is one in nine black men ages 20 to 34. The report, from the Pew Center on the States, also found that one in 355 white women ages 35 to 39 is behind bars, compared with one in 100 black women. The report's methodology differed from that used by the Justice Department, which calculates the incarceration rate by using the total population rather than the adult population as the denominator. Using the department's methodology, about one in 130 Americans is behind bars."
The Times noted, "The United States imprisons more people than any other nation in the world. China is second, with 1.5 million people behind bars. The gap is even wider in percentage terms. Germany imprisons 93 out of every 100,000 people, according to the International Center for Prison Studies at King's College in London. The comparable number for the United States is roughly eight times that, or 750 out of 100,000."
The Times noted further that "On average, states spend almost 7 percent of their budgets on corrections, trailing only health care, education and transportation. In 2007, according to the National Association of State Budget Officers, states spent $44 billion in tax dollars on corrections. That is up from $10.6 billion in 1987, a 127 percent increase when adjusted for inflation. With money from bonds and the federal government included, total state spending on corrections last year was $49 billion. By 2011, the Pew report said, states are on track to spend an additional $25 billion. It cost an average of $23,876 dollars to imprison someone in 2005, the most recent year for which data were available."
The Times article stated, "The cost of medical care is growing by 10 percent annually, the report said, and will accelerate as the prison population ages. About one in nine state government employees works in corrections, and some states are finding it hard to fill those jobs. California spent more than $500 million on overtime alone in 2006."
A copy of the report, "One in 100," is available from the CSDP research archive.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Baltimore County Clinic Restrictions Allowed To Stand
A federal court issued a ruling recently allowing restrictions on methadone clinics in Baltimore County to remain in place. The ACLU and a treatment provider had filed suit to have the county-imposed restrictions thrown out because, they claimed, such restrictions are violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, however the court failed to rule on that issue.
The Baltimore Sun reported on Feb. 24, 2008 ("Drug Clinic Limits Stand") that "With a less-than-definitive opinion from a federal appeals court, Baltimore County officials say they have no intention of scrapping their restrictions on the location of methadone clinics. As a result, at least one proposed methadone clinic in Baltimore County could find it harder to open. A panel of federal judges, sitting one level below the U.S. Supreme Court, issued an opinion this month, finding that a Pikesville methadone clinic should be allowed to stay open. But the appellate court didn't directly answer whether the county law violates the Americans with Disabilities Act - which was the chief complaint made by a Pikesville methadone clinic and the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland."
According to the Sun, "The opinion handed down by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacates an injunction issued by a federal District Court judge that had prohibited the county from enforcing its law on the location of clinics. But the appellate court decision also allows the clinic, A Helping Hand, to request a new trial on the ADA questions. The clinic owner and the ACLU of Maryland said they have not decided whether to seek a new trial. 'Part of our decision hinges on what the new injunction says,' said Deborah A. Jeon, legal director for the ACLU of Maryland. 'We have to weigh the costs and the benefits of a new trial.' County officials say they don't plan to revise the regulations on methadone clinics."
The Sun noted that "The Baltimore County Council passed a zoning law in 2002 requiring additional approval for methadone clinics and other state-licensed medical facilities that want to open less than 750 feet from homes in areas zoned for business and office uses. The law allows the clinics to operate in areas designated for manufacturing without special approvals."
It should be noted that according to the Drug Enforcement Administration, "Baltimore is home to higher numbers of heroin addicts and heroin-related crime than almost any other city in the nation and these problems tend to spill over into adjoining counties where many heroin distributors maintain residences. The enormous demand for heroin in the Baltimore metropolitan area led to an increase in the drug's abuse among teens and young adults, who routinely drive into the city to obtain heroin for themselves and other local abusers."
The Baltimore Sun reported on Feb. 24, 2008 ("Drug Clinic Limits Stand") that "With a less-than-definitive opinion from a federal appeals court, Baltimore County officials say they have no intention of scrapping their restrictions on the location of methadone clinics. As a result, at least one proposed methadone clinic in Baltimore County could find it harder to open. A panel of federal judges, sitting one level below the U.S. Supreme Court, issued an opinion this month, finding that a Pikesville methadone clinic should be allowed to stay open. But the appellate court didn't directly answer whether the county law violates the Americans with Disabilities Act - which was the chief complaint made by a Pikesville methadone clinic and the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland."
According to the Sun, "The opinion handed down by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacates an injunction issued by a federal District Court judge that had prohibited the county from enforcing its law on the location of clinics. But the appellate court decision also allows the clinic, A Helping Hand, to request a new trial on the ADA questions. The clinic owner and the ACLU of Maryland said they have not decided whether to seek a new trial. 'Part of our decision hinges on what the new injunction says,' said Deborah A. Jeon, legal director for the ACLU of Maryland. 'We have to weigh the costs and the benefits of a new trial.' County officials say they don't plan to revise the regulations on methadone clinics."
The Sun noted that "The Baltimore County Council passed a zoning law in 2002 requiring additional approval for methadone clinics and other state-licensed medical facilities that want to open less than 750 feet from homes in areas zoned for business and office uses. The law allows the clinics to operate in areas designated for manufacturing without special approvals."
It should be noted that according to the Drug Enforcement Administration, "Baltimore is home to higher numbers of heroin addicts and heroin-related crime than almost any other city in the nation and these problems tend to spill over into adjoining counties where many heroin distributors maintain residences. The enormous demand for heroin in the Baltimore metropolitan area led to an increase in the drug's abuse among teens and young adults, who routinely drive into the city to obtain heroin for themselves and other local abusers."
IMF: Afghan Farmers Made $1 Billion From Opium In 2007
The International Monetary Fund has issued an analysis of the Afghanistan economy which estimates that opium production is worth $1 billion to Afghan farmers. Meanwhile the United Kingdom, the nation which leads international anti-drug efforts in Afghanistan, has cut back its funding for the Afghan anti-narcotics ministry. This move comes as international development experts estimate that development efforts to eliminate the opium economy there will cost at least one billion pounds and take some 20 years.
First, the Financial Times reported on Feb. 25, 2008 ("Afghan Drug Body Hit By UK Funding Reversal") that "The country's narcotics economy has grown in strength in the six years since the overthrow of the Taliban regime, which had successfully banned poppy cultivation in 2000. Last year Afghanistan produced its biggest harvest, with output up 17 per cent on 2006. It has also moved into the lucrative business of refining raw opium into heroin inside its own borders. This week the International Monetary Fund said poppy production was worth $1bn to farmers. The value to the drug refiners and traffickers is far greater."
According to the IMF's Staff Report for the 2007 Article IV Consultation, issued Jan. 28, 2008:
According to the Financial Times, the Afghan anti-narcotics agency faces a funding crisis. They report that "The Afghan ministry set up to tackle the drugs trade is facing a staffing crisis after the UK, on the instructions of the Kabul government, withdrew funding for salaries. The best-educated workers at the fledgling ministry of counter-narcotics, which is intended to play a key role in reducing the country's poppy crop, have been looking for other jobs after pay for senior staff dropped from $1,500 (UKP762) to $200 a month. The ministry said 30 senior workers had left since November when pay was cut. One official, a senior aide to counter-narcotics minister General Khodaidad, said he could no longer afford the rent on his Kabul flat and was trying to find an information technology job in one of the NGOs in Kabul, which pay far more than government jobs. Other staff members claim to have received no pay since November. Britain, 'lead sponsor' of anti-drugs efforts in Afghanistan, withdrew its subsidy as part of a process designed to bring pay into line with other ministries."
Recently however the UK government and the World Bank released a joint report in which they estimate that eliminating Afghanistan's opium economy will take an investment of at least one billion UK pounds over a 20 year period. The Guardian reported on Feb. 6, 2008 ("Opium Economy Will Take 20 Years and UKP1BN to Remove") that "Afghanistan's opium economy will take up to 20 years to eradicate and require a UKP1bn investment from world leaders, according to a government study published yesterday. The 102-page report was welcomed by the international development secretary, Douglas Alexander, even though it contains some highly critical messages about the effectiveness of some of the aid programmes. Compiled by the Department of International Development and the World Bank, the analysis suggests at least an extra UKP1bn needs to be invested in irrigation, roads, alternative crops and rural development to attract farmers away from the lucrative and growing opium industry. Its conclusions came as the UN produced fresh figures on the opium trade. The UN's Office on Drugs and Crime ( UNODC ) believes this year's crop will be similar to, or slightly lower than, last year's record harvest. In 2007 Afghanistan had more land growing drugs than Colombia, Bolivia and Peru combined."
According to the Guardian, "Highlighting the lack of coordination in the current aid effort, the report warns: "The result of weak Afghan leadership and poor donor adherence ... will be some very messy and ill co-ordinated development activities. "In rural livelihood programmes for example some donors have agreed to consultations, but nevertheless finance programmes outside the budget with scant reference either to the government or agencies." It says less than a quarter of the total aid to Afghanistan currently goes through the Afghan national budget, and also criticises the military forces in Afghanistan for not sourcing goods and products from within Afghanistan. "The economic growth needed to displace the opium economy and the development of the necessary infrastructure and governance to support it will take at least one or two decades"."
The Guardian noted that "The report recommends investments of $550m ( UKP275m ) to boost rural enterprise development, and $400m for rural road planning, construction and maintenance. Overall, Afghan farmers need start-up assistance, matching investment grants, cost sharing market development and a commitment to deliver through community development councils with the aid itself seen as coming from the Afghan government, and not the true donor."
The report, Afghanistan: Economic Incentives and Development Initiatives to Reduce Opium Production, concludes:
First, the Financial Times reported on Feb. 25, 2008 ("Afghan Drug Body Hit By UK Funding Reversal") that "The country's narcotics economy has grown in strength in the six years since the overthrow of the Taliban regime, which had successfully banned poppy cultivation in 2000. Last year Afghanistan produced its biggest harvest, with output up 17 per cent on 2006. It has also moved into the lucrative business of refining raw opium into heroin inside its own borders. This week the International Monetary Fund said poppy production was worth $1bn to farmers. The value to the drug refiners and traffickers is far greater."
According to the IMF's Staff Report for the 2007 Article IV Consultation, issued Jan. 28, 2008:
Opium remains, by far, the largest cash crop in Afghanistan. Opium production has increased steadily from 185 metric tons in 2001 to 8,200 metric tons in 2007. As a result, Afghanistan has become the world’s largest opium producer, with its share of the total world supply increasing from 52 percent in 1995 to 93 percent in 2007. The increase in production has resulted in a decline in the farm-gate price of fresh opium at harvest time. Although opium prices declined in 2004–07, they were still three times higher than in 1994–2000. In 2007, about 81 percent of the opium production was located in the south and south-west regions of Afghanistan, where anti-government elements are most active.
The impact of opium cultivation on the economy has been substantial. About 12 percent of the population (or 3.3 million people) were involved in opium poppy cultivation during the 2007 season, with the farm-gate value of the opium harvest amounting to $1 billion (11 percent of projected licit GDP). The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that the total value of the opium harvest (accruing to farmers, laboratory owners, and traffickers) was about $4 billion in 2007, compared with $2.7 billion in 2005.
According to the Financial Times, the Afghan anti-narcotics agency faces a funding crisis. They report that "The Afghan ministry set up to tackle the drugs trade is facing a staffing crisis after the UK, on the instructions of the Kabul government, withdrew funding for salaries. The best-educated workers at the fledgling ministry of counter-narcotics, which is intended to play a key role in reducing the country's poppy crop, have been looking for other jobs after pay for senior staff dropped from $1,500 (UKP762) to $200 a month. The ministry said 30 senior workers had left since November when pay was cut. One official, a senior aide to counter-narcotics minister General Khodaidad, said he could no longer afford the rent on his Kabul flat and was trying to find an information technology job in one of the NGOs in Kabul, which pay far more than government jobs. Other staff members claim to have received no pay since November. Britain, 'lead sponsor' of anti-drugs efforts in Afghanistan, withdrew its subsidy as part of a process designed to bring pay into line with other ministries."
Recently however the UK government and the World Bank released a joint report in which they estimate that eliminating Afghanistan's opium economy will take an investment of at least one billion UK pounds over a 20 year period. The Guardian reported on Feb. 6, 2008 ("Opium Economy Will Take 20 Years and UKP1BN to Remove") that "Afghanistan's opium economy will take up to 20 years to eradicate and require a UKP1bn investment from world leaders, according to a government study published yesterday. The 102-page report was welcomed by the international development secretary, Douglas Alexander, even though it contains some highly critical messages about the effectiveness of some of the aid programmes. Compiled by the Department of International Development and the World Bank, the analysis suggests at least an extra UKP1bn needs to be invested in irrigation, roads, alternative crops and rural development to attract farmers away from the lucrative and growing opium industry. Its conclusions came as the UN produced fresh figures on the opium trade. The UN's Office on Drugs and Crime ( UNODC ) believes this year's crop will be similar to, or slightly lower than, last year's record harvest. In 2007 Afghanistan had more land growing drugs than Colombia, Bolivia and Peru combined."
According to the Guardian, "Highlighting the lack of coordination in the current aid effort, the report warns: "The result of weak Afghan leadership and poor donor adherence ... will be some very messy and ill co-ordinated development activities. "In rural livelihood programmes for example some donors have agreed to consultations, but nevertheless finance programmes outside the budget with scant reference either to the government or agencies." It says less than a quarter of the total aid to Afghanistan currently goes through the Afghan national budget, and also criticises the military forces in Afghanistan for not sourcing goods and products from within Afghanistan. "The economic growth needed to displace the opium economy and the development of the necessary infrastructure and governance to support it will take at least one or two decades"."
The Guardian noted that "The report recommends investments of $550m ( UKP275m ) to boost rural enterprise development, and $400m for rural road planning, construction and maintenance. Overall, Afghan farmers need start-up assistance, matching investment grants, cost sharing market development and a commitment to deliver through community development councils with the aid itself seen as coming from the Afghan government, and not the true donor."
The report, Afghanistan: Economic Incentives and Development Initiatives to Reduce Opium Production, concludes:
There is an asymmetry between the political expectations of government and donors for rapid changes in the opium economy and the reality of the one to two decades that are realistically needed before the opium economy dwindles. Effective counter-narcotics efforts inevitably are a combination of economic development, the provision of social services, and better governance and the rule of law. This will take considerable time, massive and sustained financial commitment, and political vision and stamina.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Under What Circumstances Can Police Search Cars?
The Supreme Court will soon clarify the circumstances in which police officers, who do not have a warrant, can conduct a vehicle search of an arrestee. The Court will consider the case of Rodney Gant, who was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell and possession of drug paraphernalia.
According to the February 25, 2008 New York Times ("Justices Take Vehicle-Search Case"), "The justices agreed on Monday to review the case of Rodney Joseph Gant, whose arrest on Aug. 25, 1999, raised questions that have sharply divided Arizona courts. State officials are asking the United States Supreme Court to overturn a ruling last July by the Arizona Supreme Court, which ruled that a search of Mr. Gant's car violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and that the evidence must therefore be thrown out."
The Times reported that "After Mr. Gant was convicted of possession of a drug with intent to sell plus possession of drug paraphernalia, his lawyers continued to try to have the evidence against him suppressed, asserting that there had been no justification for the warrantless search of his vehicle. The Arizona high court agreed, holding that because Mr. Gant and the other suspects had been cuffed and the scene was secure, 'neither a concern for officer safety nor the preservation of evidence justified the warrantless search of Gant's car.'"
The Times noted that "Courts at all levels have wrestled over the years with the circumstances under which the police can search cars ( and houses and people ) without warrants. Warrantless searches have often been upheld in situations that demand quick decisions by police officers, either to protect human life or preserve evidence or both. This fall, the justices will hear arguments on how Mr.Gant's case fits into those considerations."
According to the February 25, 2008 New York Times ("Justices Take Vehicle-Search Case"), "The justices agreed on Monday to review the case of Rodney Joseph Gant, whose arrest on Aug. 25, 1999, raised questions that have sharply divided Arizona courts. State officials are asking the United States Supreme Court to overturn a ruling last July by the Arizona Supreme Court, which ruled that a search of Mr. Gant's car violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and that the evidence must therefore be thrown out."
The Times reported that "After Mr. Gant was convicted of possession of a drug with intent to sell plus possession of drug paraphernalia, his lawyers continued to try to have the evidence against him suppressed, asserting that there had been no justification for the warrantless search of his vehicle. The Arizona high court agreed, holding that because Mr. Gant and the other suspects had been cuffed and the scene was secure, 'neither a concern for officer safety nor the preservation of evidence justified the warrantless search of Gant's car.'"
The Times noted that "Courts at all levels have wrestled over the years with the circumstances under which the police can search cars ( and houses and people ) without warrants. Warrantless searches have often been upheld in situations that demand quick decisions by police officers, either to protect human life or preserve evidence or both. This fall, the justices will hear arguments on how Mr.Gant's case fits into those considerations."
Monday, February 25, 2008
New Hampshire Considers Shifting To Civil Penalties For Minor Marijuana Possession
The New Hampshire legislature is considering a measure which would "decriminalize" possession of small amounts of marijuana by creating a civil penalty instead.
The Boston Globe reported on Feb. 24, 2008 ("NH Bill Would Decriminalize Marijuana") that "Two first-term state representatives from Nashua have filed legislation to decriminalize the possession of up to 0.25 ounce of marijuana, hoping that New Hampshire might join 12 other states that have decriminalized the possession of small amounts of pot. The bill, which is expected to be voted on by the House next month, would make the possession of such quantities a civil violation that would carry a $200 fine instead of a criminal misdemeanor that could result in up to a year in jail and fines of up to $2,500. 'I think the penalty should be reduced. Young people are experimenting, and if they make a bad choice, their conviction shouldn't come back to haunt them later in life,' said Representative Andrew Edwards, a 21-year-old Nashua Democrat who cosponsored the bill. 'The culture is changing, and I think the law should reflect those changes.'"
According to the Globe, "Representative Jeffrey Fontas, another 21-year-old Democrat from Nashua, who cosponsored the legislation, said he was not surprised the full House committee did not approve the bill. 'But we did have an open discussion of the issue. Mistakes early in life, like a possession charge, can be devastating to the futures of our young people,' said Fontas, adding that a single drug arrest can lead to the loss of a college scholarship, the ability to serve in the military, subsidized housing, and federal welfare like food stamps. Conley said it is rare for first-time offenders to get jail time for possession of small amounts of marijuana. 'As far as someone getting arrested and their lives being ruined, I don't think that that's the case,' he said. 'Employers are more forgiving in this day and age, and police prosecutors frequently reduce marijuana cases down to violations. The threat of criminal prosecution gives them leverage to encourage youths to attend a drug rehabilitation program.' Hudson Police Chief Richard E. Gendron said he is also opposed to the bill. 'It's a slippery slope that won't lead us anywhere.'"
The Globe noted that "On Feb. 14, when a working group of the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee voted, 4 to 1, in favor of the lighter penalty, it was the first time in more than 20 years that a group of Granite State legislators had recommended the decriminalization of marijuana. On Feb. 19, however, the full committee voted, 13 to 5, to recommend that the House not pass the law. The bill is scheduled to go before the full House March 5."
The Boston Globe reported on Feb. 24, 2008 ("NH Bill Would Decriminalize Marijuana") that "Two first-term state representatives from Nashua have filed legislation to decriminalize the possession of up to 0.25 ounce of marijuana, hoping that New Hampshire might join 12 other states that have decriminalized the possession of small amounts of pot. The bill, which is expected to be voted on by the House next month, would make the possession of such quantities a civil violation that would carry a $200 fine instead of a criminal misdemeanor that could result in up to a year in jail and fines of up to $2,500. 'I think the penalty should be reduced. Young people are experimenting, and if they make a bad choice, their conviction shouldn't come back to haunt them later in life,' said Representative Andrew Edwards, a 21-year-old Nashua Democrat who cosponsored the bill. 'The culture is changing, and I think the law should reflect those changes.'"
According to the Globe, "Representative Jeffrey Fontas, another 21-year-old Democrat from Nashua, who cosponsored the legislation, said he was not surprised the full House committee did not approve the bill. 'But we did have an open discussion of the issue. Mistakes early in life, like a possession charge, can be devastating to the futures of our young people,' said Fontas, adding that a single drug arrest can lead to the loss of a college scholarship, the ability to serve in the military, subsidized housing, and federal welfare like food stamps. Conley said it is rare for first-time offenders to get jail time for possession of small amounts of marijuana. 'As far as someone getting arrested and their lives being ruined, I don't think that that's the case,' he said. 'Employers are more forgiving in this day and age, and police prosecutors frequently reduce marijuana cases down to violations. The threat of criminal prosecution gives them leverage to encourage youths to attend a drug rehabilitation program.' Hudson Police Chief Richard E. Gendron said he is also opposed to the bill. 'It's a slippery slope that won't lead us anywhere.'"
The Globe noted that "On Feb. 14, when a working group of the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee voted, 4 to 1, in favor of the lighter penalty, it was the first time in more than 20 years that a group of Granite State legislators had recommended the decriminalization of marijuana. On Feb. 19, however, the full committee voted, 13 to 5, to recommend that the House not pass the law. The bill is scheduled to go before the full House March 5."
Cleveland's US Attorney Decides Truth Does Matter
More than a dozen residents of Mansfield, OH, have returned home from prison after being freed when an informant's lies came to light. The drug sting operation, which yielded 26 prosecutions, is now the focus of a grand jury investigation and a special prosecutor appointed by the US Justice Department.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported on Feb. 24, 2008 ("A Frame-Up Falls Apart") that "Federal judges, acting on an unprecedented request from a prosecutor, have freed 16 Mansfield residents from prison because of an undercover drug investigation that turned into a law-enforcement scandal. U.S. Attorney Greg White of Cleveland said their convictions for selling crack cocaine were tainted by an informant who admits framing innocent people. Mr. White does not call the Mansfield defendants innocent, but he says the cases against them were built on lies. He said he had to let them out of prison because they were wrongly convicted. 'The government has an obligation to do the right thing. The truth matters,' Mr. White said in a recent interview. In all, the discredited drug sting in Mansfield resulted in prosecutions of 26 people. The cases against 23 have been dismissed by judges or have ended in acquittals by juries. This month alone, 15 men came home from prison."
According to the Post-Gazette, "The Department of Justice appointed Assistant U.S. Attorney Bruce Teitelbaum of Pittsburgh as special prosecutor in the Mansfield inquiry. Mr. Teitelbaum says he is focusing on drug investigations in which federal and local law officers used a convicted killer named Jerrell Bray as their paid informant. Mr. Bray, 36, says he lied with impunity to implicate Mansfield residents in drug crimes. Worse, he says, law officers, led by a federal agent named Lee Lucas, helped him railroad many of those people into convictions. Mr. Bray pleaded guilty in December to two counts of perjury and five charges of violating the civil rights of Mansfield defendants. Sentenced to 15 years in prison, he has agreed to help in the ongoing investigation of the Mansfield cases. By cooperating he could reduce his sentence to 11 years."
The Post-Gazette noted that "Richland County Sheriff J. Steve Sheldon declined to be interviewed about the tainted cases, but he issued a statement last week saying his detectives did nothing improper. Many of those who were wrongly imprisoned tell a different story. They say in civil lawsuits that Sheriff's Detective Metcalf lied under oath about them selling drugs. They say his testimony -- or the threat of it -- proved powerful in winning over juries or obtaining guilty pleas from the accused. Most of the Mansfield suspects had prior convictions for selling drugs. Many pleaded guilty in the new round of charges in exchange for reduced prison sentences instead of taking their chances at trials in which decorated law officers would testify against them."
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported on Feb. 24, 2008 ("A Frame-Up Falls Apart") that "Federal judges, acting on an unprecedented request from a prosecutor, have freed 16 Mansfield residents from prison because of an undercover drug investigation that turned into a law-enforcement scandal. U.S. Attorney Greg White of Cleveland said their convictions for selling crack cocaine were tainted by an informant who admits framing innocent people. Mr. White does not call the Mansfield defendants innocent, but he says the cases against them were built on lies. He said he had to let them out of prison because they were wrongly convicted. 'The government has an obligation to do the right thing. The truth matters,' Mr. White said in a recent interview. In all, the discredited drug sting in Mansfield resulted in prosecutions of 26 people. The cases against 23 have been dismissed by judges or have ended in acquittals by juries. This month alone, 15 men came home from prison."
According to the Post-Gazette, "The Department of Justice appointed Assistant U.S. Attorney Bruce Teitelbaum of Pittsburgh as special prosecutor in the Mansfield inquiry. Mr. Teitelbaum says he is focusing on drug investigations in which federal and local law officers used a convicted killer named Jerrell Bray as their paid informant. Mr. Bray, 36, says he lied with impunity to implicate Mansfield residents in drug crimes. Worse, he says, law officers, led by a federal agent named Lee Lucas, helped him railroad many of those people into convictions. Mr. Bray pleaded guilty in December to two counts of perjury and five charges of violating the civil rights of Mansfield defendants. Sentenced to 15 years in prison, he has agreed to help in the ongoing investigation of the Mansfield cases. By cooperating he could reduce his sentence to 11 years."
The Post-Gazette noted that "Richland County Sheriff J. Steve Sheldon declined to be interviewed about the tainted cases, but he issued a statement last week saying his detectives did nothing improper. Many of those who were wrongly imprisoned tell a different story. They say in civil lawsuits that Sheriff's Detective Metcalf lied under oath about them selling drugs. They say his testimony -- or the threat of it -- proved powerful in winning over juries or obtaining guilty pleas from the accused. Most of the Mansfield suspects had prior convictions for selling drugs. Many pleaded guilty in the new round of charges in exchange for reduced prison sentences instead of taking their chances at trials in which decorated law officers would testify against them."
Friday, February 22, 2008
Sentencing Commission: Inmates Eligible For Sentencing Reduction Mostly Small-Time, Nonviolent Offenders
An analysis by the US Sentencing Commission reveals that most of the inmates in the federal prison system who may be eligible for a reduction in sentence due to the recent reforms of the crack versus powder cocaine penalty disparity are nonviolent, low-level offenders. This directly refutes assertions being made by US Attorney General-for-the-moment Michael Mukasey as he argues for legislation to repeal the reforms.
The Washington Post reported on Feb. 22, 2008 ("Crack Offenders Set For Early Release Mostly Nonviolent, Study Says") that "Most of the more than 1,500 crack cocaine offenders who are immediately eligible to petition courts to be released from federal prisons under new guidelines issued by the U.S. Sentencing Commission are small-time dealers or addicts who are not career criminals and whose charges did not involve violence or firearms, according to a new analysis by the commission staff. About 6 percent of the inmates were supervisors or leaders of drug rings, and about 5 percent were convicted of obstructing justice, generally by trying to get rid of their drugs as they were being arrested or contacting witnesses or co-defendants before trial, according to the analysis being circulated on Capitol Hill by the commission to counter Bush administration assertions that the guidelines would prompt the release of thousands of dangerous criminals. About one-quarter of these inmates were given enhanced sentences because of weapons charges, though the charge can apply to defendants who were actually not carrying a gun or a knife but were with someone who was armed. About 18 percent of the offenders' sentences were reduced because they were arrested and charged for the first time, were forced into a drug ring by someone such as a boyfriend, were unwittingly caught up in a drug operation during a police raid, or for some other reason. The largest group -- 41 percent -- consists of small-time crack offenders who do not fall under any of the criteria that would cause authorities to increase their sentences or have them reduced."
According to the Post, "The figures are at odds with the characterization of the inmates by Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, who would like Congress to pass legislation voiding the U.S. Sentencing Commission policy before it takes effect March 3. 'Many of these offenders are among the most serious and violent offenders in the federal system, and their early release . . . at a time when violent crime had increased in some communities will produce tragic but predictable results,' Mukasey said at a recent House Judiciary Committee hearing. The staff analysis indicated that about 6 percent of the inmates' sentences were increased because they were supervisors or leaders of a drug crew of four or more, 6 percent of prisoners' sentences were enhanced for arms specifications, and 1 percent were considered career criminals. The findings were consistent with a U.S. Sentencing Commission report to Congress in May that showed that 90 percent of federal crack cases did not involve violence. Only 5 percent involved a threat, and even fewer involved injury or death."
The Post noted that "Crack offenders serve prison terms that are up to eight times as long as those of powder cocaine offenders because of a sentencing disparity mandated by Congress under the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act. The law created a 100-to-1 ratio between crack and powder cocaine offenses, meaning that five grams of crack -- about the size of two sugar cubes -- drew the same mandatory minimum sentence as 500 grams of powder. Many activists, federal public defenders, probation officers and federal judges have said the disparity is racially discriminatory. The overwhelming majority of crack cocaine offenders are black, while most powder cocaine offenders are white or Latino. Under pressure, the commission moderately reduced the guidelines for future crack offenders in March. The guidelines went into effect in November after Congress declined to intervene. The next month, the commission decided to make the guidelines retroactive so that current inmates could petition to reduce their sentences. The Justice Department opposed guideline reductions, but the commission pressed on. Last month, the commission created a list of 1,508 inmates who would be eligible for immediate release if their sentences were reduced under the guidelines and passed the names to the chief judge in each judicial district. Michael S. Nachmanoff, a lawyer who studied the inmate list for the Eastern District of Virginia, which has the largest number of crack cases eligible for sentence reduction, and found that only 15 prisoners have a legitimate chance for release because of restrictions. The reductions are so moderate, he said, that the inmates would leave prison only a few months before they were scheduled to be released without them."
The Washington Post reported on Feb. 22, 2008 ("Crack Offenders Set For Early Release Mostly Nonviolent, Study Says") that "Most of the more than 1,500 crack cocaine offenders who are immediately eligible to petition courts to be released from federal prisons under new guidelines issued by the U.S. Sentencing Commission are small-time dealers or addicts who are not career criminals and whose charges did not involve violence or firearms, according to a new analysis by the commission staff. About 6 percent of the inmates were supervisors or leaders of drug rings, and about 5 percent were convicted of obstructing justice, generally by trying to get rid of their drugs as they were being arrested or contacting witnesses or co-defendants before trial, according to the analysis being circulated on Capitol Hill by the commission to counter Bush administration assertions that the guidelines would prompt the release of thousands of dangerous criminals. About one-quarter of these inmates were given enhanced sentences because of weapons charges, though the charge can apply to defendants who were actually not carrying a gun or a knife but were with someone who was armed. About 18 percent of the offenders' sentences were reduced because they were arrested and charged for the first time, were forced into a drug ring by someone such as a boyfriend, were unwittingly caught up in a drug operation during a police raid, or for some other reason. The largest group -- 41 percent -- consists of small-time crack offenders who do not fall under any of the criteria that would cause authorities to increase their sentences or have them reduced."
According to the Post, "The figures are at odds with the characterization of the inmates by Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, who would like Congress to pass legislation voiding the U.S. Sentencing Commission policy before it takes effect March 3. 'Many of these offenders are among the most serious and violent offenders in the federal system, and their early release . . . at a time when violent crime had increased in some communities will produce tragic but predictable results,' Mukasey said at a recent House Judiciary Committee hearing. The staff analysis indicated that about 6 percent of the inmates' sentences were increased because they were supervisors or leaders of a drug crew of four or more, 6 percent of prisoners' sentences were enhanced for arms specifications, and 1 percent were considered career criminals. The findings were consistent with a U.S. Sentencing Commission report to Congress in May that showed that 90 percent of federal crack cases did not involve violence. Only 5 percent involved a threat, and even fewer involved injury or death."
The Post noted that "Crack offenders serve prison terms that are up to eight times as long as those of powder cocaine offenders because of a sentencing disparity mandated by Congress under the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act. The law created a 100-to-1 ratio between crack and powder cocaine offenses, meaning that five grams of crack -- about the size of two sugar cubes -- drew the same mandatory minimum sentence as 500 grams of powder. Many activists, federal public defenders, probation officers and federal judges have said the disparity is racially discriminatory. The overwhelming majority of crack cocaine offenders are black, while most powder cocaine offenders are white or Latino. Under pressure, the commission moderately reduced the guidelines for future crack offenders in March. The guidelines went into effect in November after Congress declined to intervene. The next month, the commission decided to make the guidelines retroactive so that current inmates could petition to reduce their sentences. The Justice Department opposed guideline reductions, but the commission pressed on. Last month, the commission created a list of 1,508 inmates who would be eligible for immediate release if their sentences were reduced under the guidelines and passed the names to the chief judge in each judicial district. Michael S. Nachmanoff, a lawyer who studied the inmate list for the Eastern District of Virginia, which has the largest number of crack cases eligible for sentence reduction, and found that only 15 prisoners have a legitimate chance for release because of restrictions. The reductions are so moderate, he said, that the inmates would leave prison only a few months before they were scheduled to be released without them."
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Colombian Soldiers Found Guilty In 2006 Slaughter Of Anti-Drug Police Squad
Fifteen soldiers in the Colombian Army, including a colonel, have been convicted in the deaths of a squad of anti-drug police. The killings took place in May 2006, allegedly on the order of drug traffickers.
The Los Angeles Times reported on Feb. 19, 2008 ("Colombian Soldiers Convicted in Massacre") that "A judge in Cali found Col. Bayron Carvajal and the soldiers guilty of aggravated homicide in the slaughter of 10 police officers and an informant in a May 2006 ambush outside a rural nursing home near Cali. Sentences will be imposed in two weeks. The massacre was just one of several scandals over the last two years that have tarnished this country's armed forces and raised questions about the U.S.-sponsored program called Plan Colombia that in 2000 began funneling millions of dollars in aid here."
According to the Times, "The soldiers lay in wait, then fired hundreds of rounds and threw several grenades at the police unit as it was about to launch an operation to recover 220 pounds of cocaine that a tipster had said was stashed inside a psychiatric facility in the town of Jamundi. Six police officers were found to have been shot at close range. None of the soldiers were wounded. No drugs were found, and the informant -- who prosecutors said spoke by phone with Carvajal shortly before the attack -- was killed as well."
The Times noted that "Since 2006, high-ranking military officers are alleged to have sold secrets to drug traffickers to help them elude capture, and to have planted fake bombs to gain career advancement. A recent report by human rights groups found that extrajudicial killings by the army have increased since the early years of Plan Colombia. Carvajal maintained his innocence throughout the trial, saying he and his troops thought the police were drug traffickers. More than 100 witnesses were called to testify, some of whom linked Carvajal to both leftist guerrillas and drug gangs."
The Los Angeles Times reported on Feb. 19, 2008 ("Colombian Soldiers Convicted in Massacre") that "A judge in Cali found Col. Bayron Carvajal and the soldiers guilty of aggravated homicide in the slaughter of 10 police officers and an informant in a May 2006 ambush outside a rural nursing home near Cali. Sentences will be imposed in two weeks. The massacre was just one of several scandals over the last two years that have tarnished this country's armed forces and raised questions about the U.S.-sponsored program called Plan Colombia that in 2000 began funneling millions of dollars in aid here."
According to the Times, "The soldiers lay in wait, then fired hundreds of rounds and threw several grenades at the police unit as it was about to launch an operation to recover 220 pounds of cocaine that a tipster had said was stashed inside a psychiatric facility in the town of Jamundi. Six police officers were found to have been shot at close range. None of the soldiers were wounded. No drugs were found, and the informant -- who prosecutors said spoke by phone with Carvajal shortly before the attack -- was killed as well."
The Times noted that "Since 2006, high-ranking military officers are alleged to have sold secrets to drug traffickers to help them elude capture, and to have planted fake bombs to gain career advancement. A recent report by human rights groups found that extrajudicial killings by the army have increased since the early years of Plan Colombia. Carvajal maintained his innocence throughout the trial, saying he and his troops thought the police were drug traffickers. More than 100 witnesses were called to testify, some of whom linked Carvajal to both leftist guerrillas and drug gangs."
Israeli City Considers Heroin Maintenance Program
The city of Tel Aviv, Israel, is considering a plan to provide heroin maintenance treatment to hardcore opiate addicts who have not stabilized with other available treatment modalities.
The Jerusalem Post reported on Feb. 17, 2008 ("TA Considers Supplying Heroin to Addicts") that "Tel Aviv has come up with a controversial new plan to give free heroin to addicts who have failed rehabilitation attempts, reports the Hebrew weekly Yediot Tel Aviv. City health and welfare officials are putting together the revolutionary plan, which is aimed at preventing the social damage caused by addicts trying to obtain money to buy the illicit drugs. According to the report, four out of every five heroin addicts who complete rehabilitation programs eventually end up back on the drug, and three out of every four property crimes are committed by drug addicts. The city's welfare service has decided to follow the example of some European countries and has come up with a plan to provide controlled quantities of heroin free to adult addicts who have failed several rehabilitation attempts. The distribution would be done at a specific medical clinic under the supervision of doctors. The plan will need to come before the Health Ministry for approval before it can go ahead."
The Post noted that "The report said the city's welfare service is currently dealing with 1,707 households for drug-related problems, and workers in the field have long recognized that major problems arise from addicts' attempts to get money for drugs. Police statistics show that 75 percent of property crimes and many of the recent attacks on elderly people have been committed by addicts trying to get money. The figures also show that only 20% of addicts succeed in rehabilitation programs in the long term. The report said there are currently some 15,000 drug addicts in Israel, most of them addicted to heroin."
To learn more, check out Drug War Facts, particularly the section on Heroin Maintenance. Also for more information, check out the North American Opiate Medication Initiative study of heroin assisted therapy, with clinical trials being conducted in Canada in Vancouver, BC and Montreal, Quebec.
The Jerusalem Post reported on Feb. 17, 2008 ("TA Considers Supplying Heroin to Addicts") that "Tel Aviv has come up with a controversial new plan to give free heroin to addicts who have failed rehabilitation attempts, reports the Hebrew weekly Yediot Tel Aviv. City health and welfare officials are putting together the revolutionary plan, which is aimed at preventing the social damage caused by addicts trying to obtain money to buy the illicit drugs. According to the report, four out of every five heroin addicts who complete rehabilitation programs eventually end up back on the drug, and three out of every four property crimes are committed by drug addicts. The city's welfare service has decided to follow the example of some European countries and has come up with a plan to provide controlled quantities of heroin free to adult addicts who have failed several rehabilitation attempts. The distribution would be done at a specific medical clinic under the supervision of doctors. The plan will need to come before the Health Ministry for approval before it can go ahead."
The Post noted that "The report said the city's welfare service is currently dealing with 1,707 households for drug-related problems, and workers in the field have long recognized that major problems arise from addicts' attempts to get money for drugs. Police statistics show that 75 percent of property crimes and many of the recent attacks on elderly people have been committed by addicts trying to get money. The figures also show that only 20% of addicts succeed in rehabilitation programs in the long term. The report said there are currently some 15,000 drug addicts in Israel, most of them addicted to heroin."
To learn more, check out Drug War Facts, particularly the section on Heroin Maintenance. Also for more information, check out the North American Opiate Medication Initiative study of heroin assisted therapy, with clinical trials being conducted in Canada in Vancouver, BC and Montreal, Quebec.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Budget Problems Prompt NY Governor To Consider Crack Tax
New York Governor Eliot Spitzer is pushing a tax on illegal drugs as a way to help close the huge budget gap his administration faces. The proposal though seemingly serious has been widely mocked.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported on Feb. 18, 2008 ("Spitzer Wants NY To Tax Illegal Drugs") that "If you can't beat it, tax it. That seems to be the axiom in New York these days, where Democratic Gov. Eliot Spitzer, struggling to close a $4.4 billion budget gap, has proposed making drug dealers pay tax on their stashes of illegal drugs. The new tax would apply to cocaine, heroin and marijuana, and could be paid with pre-bought 'tax stamps' affixed to the bags of dope."
According to the Chronicle, ""I guess if it moves, he'll tax it," said Republican state Sen. Martin Golden, who dubbed the proposal "the crack tax." Some opponents said that because cocaine and marijuana would be subject to the new levies, it should more aptly be called 'the crack-pot tax.' 'How do I explain to my 16-year-old son that we're giving a certain legitimacy to marijuana, cocaine and heroin?' asked Golden, a former New York City police officer who represents a Brooklyn district. 'We are taxing an illegal substance.' He added, 'Is prostitution next?' On the other side of the aisle, some Democrats, too, were stunned by the plan. 'My initial instinct is: I don't understand it,' said Bill Perkins, a state senator from Harlem. 'Most of the dealers I'm familiar with are petty crack dealers - most of them are crackheads. They are broke, to say the least. I just don't understand how you impose a tax' on broke crackheads, he said. Taxing illegal drugs is more widespread than is generally known. At least 21 states have some form of tax for illicit drugs, although some of those laws have been challenged in courts, and others have fallen into disuse. Almost all the remaining drug-tax laws are used mainly by local law enforcement agencies as a way to seize drug money and fund counter-narcotics operations."
The Chronicle noted that "In New York, Spitzer proposed the drug tax in his 2008-09 budget as a way to deal with a projected shortfall, and in a memo said taxing drug dealers would raise $13 million in the coming fiscal year. The governor's office said the bill would contain strict secrecy requirements, so drug dealers who paid their taxes would not be incriminating themselves. A tax stamp for a gram of marijuana would cost $3.50, and $200 for a gram of cocaine, 'whether pure or diluted,' according to the governor's proposal."
The San Francisco Chronicle reported on Feb. 18, 2008 ("Spitzer Wants NY To Tax Illegal Drugs") that "If you can't beat it, tax it. That seems to be the axiom in New York these days, where Democratic Gov. Eliot Spitzer, struggling to close a $4.4 billion budget gap, has proposed making drug dealers pay tax on their stashes of illegal drugs. The new tax would apply to cocaine, heroin and marijuana, and could be paid with pre-bought 'tax stamps' affixed to the bags of dope."
According to the Chronicle, ""I guess if it moves, he'll tax it," said Republican state Sen. Martin Golden, who dubbed the proposal "the crack tax." Some opponents said that because cocaine and marijuana would be subject to the new levies, it should more aptly be called 'the crack-pot tax.' 'How do I explain to my 16-year-old son that we're giving a certain legitimacy to marijuana, cocaine and heroin?' asked Golden, a former New York City police officer who represents a Brooklyn district. 'We are taxing an illegal substance.' He added, 'Is prostitution next?' On the other side of the aisle, some Democrats, too, were stunned by the plan. 'My initial instinct is: I don't understand it,' said Bill Perkins, a state senator from Harlem. 'Most of the dealers I'm familiar with are petty crack dealers - most of them are crackheads. They are broke, to say the least. I just don't understand how you impose a tax' on broke crackheads, he said. Taxing illegal drugs is more widespread than is generally known. At least 21 states have some form of tax for illicit drugs, although some of those laws have been challenged in courts, and others have fallen into disuse. Almost all the remaining drug-tax laws are used mainly by local law enforcement agencies as a way to seize drug money and fund counter-narcotics operations."
The Chronicle noted that "In New York, Spitzer proposed the drug tax in his 2008-09 budget as a way to deal with a projected shortfall, and in a memo said taxing drug dealers would raise $13 million in the coming fiscal year. The governor's office said the bill would contain strict secrecy requirements, so drug dealers who paid their taxes would not be incriminating themselves. A tax stamp for a gram of marijuana would cost $3.50, and $200 for a gram of cocaine, 'whether pure or diluted,' according to the governor's proposal."
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Buffalo's US Attorney Does The Right Thing
The US Attorney's office in Buffalo, NY, has decided to not try enforcing waivers that would deny inmates serving federal time for crack offenses the ability to apply for a reduction in sentence now that Congress and the US Sentencing Commission have allow such a reduction. The office was one of only two in the country which used such waivers.
The Buffalo News reported on Feb. 13, 2008 ("Crack Sentence Cuts Won't Be Opposed") that "U.S. Attorney Terrance P. Flynn will not oppose reductions in crack sentences based on a legal waiver that is routinely included in plea agreements filed in the federal courts of Buffalo and Rochester. 'After a lot of discussion, this decision was made in the interest of justice, in the interest of national uniformity of sentencing and in the interest of not tying up the courts with a lot of additional litigation,' said Joseph M. Guerra III, chief of drug prosecutions in Flynn's office."
According to the News, "The federal court system has 94 districts. 'We recently learned that our district and possibly one other were the only ones that had this waiver in their plea agreements,' Guerra said. 'That goes against the goal of national uniformity in sentencing.'"
The News noted that "Convicts who signed the waiver agreed they would never ask for reduced sentences, even if future changes in the law allowed them to do so. Several defense attorneys and the president of the Buffalo Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People had been upset that Flynn's office was considering enforcing the waiver. Authorities estimate that 20,000 people who are serving federal crack sentences throughout the nation will request sentence reductions because of the changes enacted by Congress and the U.S. Sentencing Commission. That number will include an estimated 200- plus men and women who were convicted in federal courts in Buffalo and Rochester. Judges will begin considering the requests March 3, according to Richard J. Arcara, chief of the federal judges in Western New York. Arcara said rulings will be made on a 'case-by-case basis.'"
The Buffalo News reported on Feb. 13, 2008 ("Crack Sentence Cuts Won't Be Opposed") that "U.S. Attorney Terrance P. Flynn will not oppose reductions in crack sentences based on a legal waiver that is routinely included in plea agreements filed in the federal courts of Buffalo and Rochester. 'After a lot of discussion, this decision was made in the interest of justice, in the interest of national uniformity of sentencing and in the interest of not tying up the courts with a lot of additional litigation,' said Joseph M. Guerra III, chief of drug prosecutions in Flynn's office."
According to the News, "The federal court system has 94 districts. 'We recently learned that our district and possibly one other were the only ones that had this waiver in their plea agreements,' Guerra said. 'That goes against the goal of national uniformity in sentencing.'"
The News noted that "Convicts who signed the waiver agreed they would never ask for reduced sentences, even if future changes in the law allowed them to do so. Several defense attorneys and the president of the Buffalo Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People had been upset that Flynn's office was considering enforcing the waiver. Authorities estimate that 20,000 people who are serving federal crack sentences throughout the nation will request sentence reductions because of the changes enacted by Congress and the U.S. Sentencing Commission. That number will include an estimated 200- plus men and women who were convicted in federal courts in Buffalo and Rochester. Judges will begin considering the requests March 3, according to Richard J. Arcara, chief of the federal judges in Western New York. Arcara said rulings will be made on a 'case-by-case basis.'"
Friday, February 15, 2008
Major American Physicians Organization Endorses Medical Marijuana
The American College of Physicians has endorsed easing restrictions on medical marijuana. From their webpage: "Additional research is needed to further clarify the therapeutic value of cannabinoids and determine optimal routes of administration. Unfortunately, research expansion has been hindered by a complicated federal approval process, limited availability of research-grade marijuana, and the debate over legalization. ACP believes the science on medical marijuana should not be obscured or hindered by the debate surrounding the legalization of marijuana for general use." The ACP's full position paper on the subject is available by clicking here.
Protest Planned Over Indictment Of Man Who Accidentally Killed Cop During SWAT Raid
A rally is planned for Feb. 23, 2008, in Chesapeake, VA, to protest the indictment of Ryan Frederick for the death of a police officer killed when a SWAT team raided Frederick's home. The raid was based on an informant's incorrect claim that Frederick was growing marijuana.
The Virginian-Pilot reported on Feb. 12, 2008 ("Frederick Supporters Plan Rally Outside Chesapeake Jail") that "Frederick has been held at the jail since his arrest following the Jan. 17 shooting of Detective Jarrod Shivers, 34, a father of three. He is charged with first-degree murder, use of a firearm and first-offense possession of marijuana, a misdemeanor. Shivers, an eight-year police veteran, was shot while executing a drug search warrant at Frederick's home in the 900 block of Redstart Ave., in the Portlock section of Chesapeake. Police said Shivers was attempting to enter the suspect's home when "shots were fired from inside the residence," striking the detective. Frederick, in a jail interview with The Virginian-Pilot, said he did not know it was a police kicking in his front door and fired his .380-caliber handgun at what he thought was an intruder. A special prosecutor from Northern Virginia has been appointed to handle the case. Paul Ebert, the commonwealth's attorney from Prince William County, was appointed when Chesapeake prosecutors removed themselves from the case to avoid any perceived appearance of bias."
According to the Virginian-Pilot, "Supporters of Ryan Frederick, the man accused of fatally shooting a city detective, are planning a march and rally Feb. 23 at the city jail where the 28-year-old is being held without bail. The rally is planned from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Chesapeake Correctional Center, 400 Albemarle Drive. Frederick is expected to appear in Chesapeake General District Court two days before the planned rally for a bond hearing."
The case has had reverberations well beyond Virginia. As Victorville, CA Desert Dispatch noted in an editorial on Feb. 12, 2008 ("Unnecessary SWAT Raids Put All Parties At Risk"), "Right now, in Chesapeake, Va., Ryan Frederick is in jail, charged with murdering a police officer. On Jan. 17, a police SWAT team converged on Frederick's home after an informant told police he was growing marijuana, according to the Virginian-Pilot. Based on this information, the police organized an evening raid. Frederick, who was apparently asleep, said he thought somebody was trying to break into his home. The circumstances are not fully clear, but he ultimately shot one of the officers as they broke down his front door. The officer later died. The police did not find a marijuana-growing operation in Frederick's house. He was growing tree saplings in his garage apparently. He had a slight amount of marijuana for recreational use, a misdemeanor. His first one. According to the Virginian-Pilot, Frederick was afraid because somebody had broken into his garage three days before the police raid, which may well explain the source of the informant's claims. As a result, an officer is dead and a man who believed he was protecting his home from an intruder may stand trial for it. The community is coming out in support of Frederick, but it's a tragedy all around."
The Desert Dispatch wrote that "SWAT raids should be intended as a tool of last resort, when lives are endangered and there is no other way for authorities to safely enter a home or building. Even in the appropriate circumstances these raids can be deadly for all involved. A SWAT officer was killed last week in the Los Angeles area in a raid trying to stop an apparently mentally ill man who killed three members of his own family. When authorities misuse these raids – for whatever logical reason – to execute search warrants, they put themselves and sometimes innocent people at risk."
The Virginian-Pilot reported on Feb. 12, 2008 ("Frederick Supporters Plan Rally Outside Chesapeake Jail") that "Frederick has been held at the jail since his arrest following the Jan. 17 shooting of Detective Jarrod Shivers, 34, a father of three. He is charged with first-degree murder, use of a firearm and first-offense possession of marijuana, a misdemeanor. Shivers, an eight-year police veteran, was shot while executing a drug search warrant at Frederick's home in the 900 block of Redstart Ave., in the Portlock section of Chesapeake. Police said Shivers was attempting to enter the suspect's home when "shots were fired from inside the residence," striking the detective. Frederick, in a jail interview with The Virginian-Pilot, said he did not know it was a police kicking in his front door and fired his .380-caliber handgun at what he thought was an intruder. A special prosecutor from Northern Virginia has been appointed to handle the case. Paul Ebert, the commonwealth's attorney from Prince William County, was appointed when Chesapeake prosecutors removed themselves from the case to avoid any perceived appearance of bias."
According to the Virginian-Pilot, "Supporters of Ryan Frederick, the man accused of fatally shooting a city detective, are planning a march and rally Feb. 23 at the city jail where the 28-year-old is being held without bail. The rally is planned from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Chesapeake Correctional Center, 400 Albemarle Drive. Frederick is expected to appear in Chesapeake General District Court two days before the planned rally for a bond hearing."
The case has had reverberations well beyond Virginia. As Victorville, CA Desert Dispatch noted in an editorial on Feb. 12, 2008 ("Unnecessary SWAT Raids Put All Parties At Risk"), "Right now, in Chesapeake, Va., Ryan Frederick is in jail, charged with murdering a police officer. On Jan. 17, a police SWAT team converged on Frederick's home after an informant told police he was growing marijuana, according to the Virginian-Pilot. Based on this information, the police organized an evening raid. Frederick, who was apparently asleep, said he thought somebody was trying to break into his home. The circumstances are not fully clear, but he ultimately shot one of the officers as they broke down his front door. The officer later died. The police did not find a marijuana-growing operation in Frederick's house. He was growing tree saplings in his garage apparently. He had a slight amount of marijuana for recreational use, a misdemeanor. His first one. According to the Virginian-Pilot, Frederick was afraid because somebody had broken into his garage three days before the police raid, which may well explain the source of the informant's claims. As a result, an officer is dead and a man who believed he was protecting his home from an intruder may stand trial for it. The community is coming out in support of Frederick, but it's a tragedy all around."
The Desert Dispatch wrote that "SWAT raids should be intended as a tool of last resort, when lives are endangered and there is no other way for authorities to safely enter a home or building. Even in the appropriate circumstances these raids can be deadly for all involved. A SWAT officer was killed last week in the Los Angeles area in a raid trying to stop an apparently mentally ill man who killed three members of his own family. When authorities misuse these raids – for whatever logical reason – to execute search warrants, they put themselves and sometimes innocent people at risk."
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Indiana Moves To Restrict Access To Treatment
The state of Indiana is considering restrictions which would limit access to effective drug treatment.
The Courier Journal reported on Feb. 12, 2008 ("Panel OKs Clinic Restrictions") that "Legislation to impose new restrictions on methadone clinics, including a requirement that patients be tested for marijuana and have a designated driver after appointments, cleared a House committee yesterday. The House Health Committee unanimously approved Senate Bill 157, but some members said they did so with reservations, particularly about the driving provision added yesterday. 'I'm concerned we'll lose people in treatment who are riding a bus or walking or don't have a designated driver,' said Rep. Carolene Mays, D-Indianapolis."
According to the Courier Journal, "The bill already has passed the Senate, although without the designated-driver requirement. It would require the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration to adopt new rules to regulate clinics and require state approval for all patients who would receive more than 14 take-home doses of the drug. The House committee approved another amendment yesterday requiring clinics to test patients for marijuana use."
The Courier Journal noted that "But the committee did not act on a proposed amendment by Rep. Terry Goodin, D-Crothersville, that would have banned patients from bringing children to treatment centers. Clark County Commissioner Michael Moore testified for the amendment. He told the committee that too many of the clinic's patients have their children with them when they come in early in the morning to receive treatments. Moore said many of those patients come to a restaurant he owns before or after their appointments and often fall asleep or act erratically. 'This is the kind of behavior that would make most social-service agencies jump in and act,' Moore said. But Rep. John Day, D-Indianapolis, said he was worried about a single mother who might have to miss an appointment if she couldn't bring her children."
The Courier Journal reported on Feb. 12, 2008 ("Panel OKs Clinic Restrictions") that "Legislation to impose new restrictions on methadone clinics, including a requirement that patients be tested for marijuana and have a designated driver after appointments, cleared a House committee yesterday. The House Health Committee unanimously approved Senate Bill 157, but some members said they did so with reservations, particularly about the driving provision added yesterday. 'I'm concerned we'll lose people in treatment who are riding a bus or walking or don't have a designated driver,' said Rep. Carolene Mays, D-Indianapolis."
According to the Courier Journal, "The bill already has passed the Senate, although without the designated-driver requirement. It would require the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration to adopt new rules to regulate clinics and require state approval for all patients who would receive more than 14 take-home doses of the drug. The House committee approved another amendment yesterday requiring clinics to test patients for marijuana use."
The Courier Journal noted that "But the committee did not act on a proposed amendment by Rep. Terry Goodin, D-Crothersville, that would have banned patients from bringing children to treatment centers. Clark County Commissioner Michael Moore testified for the amendment. He told the committee that too many of the clinic's patients have their children with them when they come in early in the morning to receive treatments. Moore said many of those patients come to a restaurant he owns before or after their appointments and often fall asleep or act erratically. 'This is the kind of behavior that would make most social-service agencies jump in and act,' Moore said. But Rep. John Day, D-Indianapolis, said he was worried about a single mother who might have to miss an appointment if she couldn't bring her children."
Marijuana and Gum Disease
New Zealand research shows a possible link between smoking marijuana and gum disease but notes other factors may be at play.
According to the February 6, 2008 Calgary Herald ("Pot-smoking linked to gum disease"), "The new study, published in this week's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, included 903 people born in New Zealand between 1972 and 1973. The group reported their cannabis use during the previous year when they were 18, 21, 26 and 32, and had their teeth checked twice, when they were 26 and 32. Researchers assigned participants to one of three exposure groups: no exposure, some exposure (one to 40 occasions of cannabis use reported during the previous year) and high exposure (41 or more occasions of pot use)."
The Herald article stated, "Researchers found that young people who smoke cannabis 41 or more times per year -- or almost once a week -- are up to three times more likely than non-users to have serious periodontal disease by age 32. 'People lose the support around the bone, the support around their teeth and they may lose their teeth to periodontal disease,' says Dr. James Beck, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Dentistry."
The article noted, "When periodontal disease progresses, it destroys the ligament around the tooth and bone. Gum separates from the teeth, forming pockets that fill with plaque and infection, according to the American Academy of Periodontology. The amount of destruction is measured by sticking a probe between the gum and tooth to see how deep the pockets are. That's called attachment loss. After controlling for tobacco smoking, infrequent dental check-ups and plaque, compared with those who had never smoked cannabis, those in the highest using group had a 60 per cent increased risk for having one or more sites with four millimetres or greater pockets or attachment loss, and a three-times greater risk for having one or more sites with five millimetres or more attachment loss."
The article, "Cannabis Smoking and Periodontal Disease Among Young Adults," is available from the JAMA website.
According to the February 6, 2008 Calgary Herald ("Pot-smoking linked to gum disease"), "The new study, published in this week's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, included 903 people born in New Zealand between 1972 and 1973. The group reported their cannabis use during the previous year when they were 18, 21, 26 and 32, and had their teeth checked twice, when they were 26 and 32. Researchers assigned participants to one of three exposure groups: no exposure, some exposure (one to 40 occasions of cannabis use reported during the previous year) and high exposure (41 or more occasions of pot use)."
The Herald article stated, "Researchers found that young people who smoke cannabis 41 or more times per year -- or almost once a week -- are up to three times more likely than non-users to have serious periodontal disease by age 32. 'People lose the support around the bone, the support around their teeth and they may lose their teeth to periodontal disease,' says Dr. James Beck, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Dentistry."
The article noted, "When periodontal disease progresses, it destroys the ligament around the tooth and bone. Gum separates from the teeth, forming pockets that fill with plaque and infection, according to the American Academy of Periodontology. The amount of destruction is measured by sticking a probe between the gum and tooth to see how deep the pockets are. That's called attachment loss. After controlling for tobacco smoking, infrequent dental check-ups and plaque, compared with those who had never smoked cannabis, those in the highest using group had a 60 per cent increased risk for having one or more sites with four millimetres or greater pockets or attachment loss, and a three-times greater risk for having one or more sites with five millimetres or more attachment loss."
The article, "Cannabis Smoking and Periodontal Disease Among Young Adults," is available from the JAMA website.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Plea Agreement Provision May Prevent Sentence Reductions
Federal rules now allow many who had been sentenced to harsh mandatory minimum sentences for crack to apply for a reduction in their sentences. A waiver of this potential right which had been routinely included in some federal plea agreements is expected to prevent some from applying.
The Buffalo News reported on Feb. 11, 2008 ("Battle Shapes Up Over Crack Sentences") that "Federal court officials took action last year to give a break to people convicted on federal crack cocaine charges. They enacted changes after years of complaints that crack sentences were exceptionally harsh and that African-Americans from poor, inner-city neighborhoods were the ones most likely to be convicted. But U.S. Attorney Terrance P. Flynn may oppose requests to reduce the sentences of previously convicted people, based on a legal waiver that is routinely included in federal plea agreements filed in Buffalo and Rochester. Dating to at least 1997, hundreds of federal drug offenders in the region have agreed to the waiver, promising that they would never ask for reduced sentences -- even if future changes in the law allowed them to do so. 'At this point, we haven't decided whether we will try to enforce the waiver,' said Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph M. Guerra III, Flynn's top aide for drug prosecutions. 'We've talked about the situation with [Justice Department] officials in Washington, and we're waiting for guidance or directives from them.'"
According to the News, "If Flynn's office decides to fight the requests for reduced sentences, that will upset many defense attorneys and Frank B. Mesiah, president of the Buffalo chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. By changing the guidelines, Congress and the U.S. Sentencing Commission have already made a clear statement that people convicted of crack cocaine crimes were being sentenced too harshly, Mesiah said. 'It would be wrong for [prosecutors] to challenge that,' Mesiah said. 'If the U.S. attorney follows that policy, he will be adding even more inequities to the system.' Similar comments came from Buffalo defense lawyers James P. Harrington, Mark J. Mahoney and Herbert L. Greenman, all of whom represent many local drug defendants. 'It would be unfair and unfortunate,' Harrington said. 'It would go against the spirit of what Congress and the sentencing commission were trying to do when they decided that these sentences should be reduced.' Harrington is the Buffalo representative on a national panel of attorneys who represent federal defendants who can't afford lawyers."
The News noted that "Ultimately, federal judges will decide on a case-by-case basis if defendants qualify for early release from prison. 'This issue [on the waivers] has not come before us yet. If it does come before us, we'll decide on it,' said Richard J. Arcara, chief U.S. district judge for Western New York. 'There are a lot of complicated issues surrounding the changes in the crack sentences. We're already looking at these issues, and we'll be deciding these cases as expeditiously and fairly as we can. It will be a high priority.' Judges will be looking at each individual's criminal history -- including the amount of drugs involved and whether any violent crimes were also involved -- before deciding whether to reduce sentences, Arcara said."
The Buffalo News reported on Feb. 11, 2008 ("Battle Shapes Up Over Crack Sentences") that "Federal court officials took action last year to give a break to people convicted on federal crack cocaine charges. They enacted changes after years of complaints that crack sentences were exceptionally harsh and that African-Americans from poor, inner-city neighborhoods were the ones most likely to be convicted. But U.S. Attorney Terrance P. Flynn may oppose requests to reduce the sentences of previously convicted people, based on a legal waiver that is routinely included in federal plea agreements filed in Buffalo and Rochester. Dating to at least 1997, hundreds of federal drug offenders in the region have agreed to the waiver, promising that they would never ask for reduced sentences -- even if future changes in the law allowed them to do so. 'At this point, we haven't decided whether we will try to enforce the waiver,' said Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph M. Guerra III, Flynn's top aide for drug prosecutions. 'We've talked about the situation with [Justice Department] officials in Washington, and we're waiting for guidance or directives from them.'"
According to the News, "If Flynn's office decides to fight the requests for reduced sentences, that will upset many defense attorneys and Frank B. Mesiah, president of the Buffalo chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. By changing the guidelines, Congress and the U.S. Sentencing Commission have already made a clear statement that people convicted of crack cocaine crimes were being sentenced too harshly, Mesiah said. 'It would be wrong for [prosecutors] to challenge that,' Mesiah said. 'If the U.S. attorney follows that policy, he will be adding even more inequities to the system.' Similar comments came from Buffalo defense lawyers James P. Harrington, Mark J. Mahoney and Herbert L. Greenman, all of whom represent many local drug defendants. 'It would be unfair and unfortunate,' Harrington said. 'It would go against the spirit of what Congress and the sentencing commission were trying to do when they decided that these sentences should be reduced.' Harrington is the Buffalo representative on a national panel of attorneys who represent federal defendants who can't afford lawyers."
The News noted that "Ultimately, federal judges will decide on a case-by-case basis if defendants qualify for early release from prison. 'This issue [on the waivers] has not come before us yet. If it does come before us, we'll decide on it,' said Richard J. Arcara, chief U.S. district judge for Western New York. 'There are a lot of complicated issues surrounding the changes in the crack sentences. We're already looking at these issues, and we'll be deciding these cases as expeditiously and fairly as we can. It will be a high priority.' Judges will be looking at each individual's criminal history -- including the amount of drugs involved and whether any violent crimes were also involved -- before deciding whether to reduce sentences, Arcara said."
Monday, February 11, 2008
Canada: Could Crime Bill Impasse Bring Down Harper Government?
The Conservative government of Stephen Harper is pushing crime policy to the forefront as it attempts to replicate a US-style drug war.
The Ottawa Citizen reported on Feb. 8, 2008 ("Pass Crime Bill or Go to Polls, Tories Say") that "Looking more and more like it is bent on an election, the Harper government set another potential trap for the Liberals yesterday, introducing a motion urging the Senate to pass the government's violent-crime bill by the start of next month, but the Liberals promptly dismissed the move as a "juvenile trick." The motion, expected to be put to a vote next week, calls on the Senate to pass the Tackling Violent Crime Act by March 1. The government has declared it a confidence motion, meaning an election could be triggered if the measure is defeated."
According to the Citizen, "There are now three potential triggers for a spring election in the next seven weeks. Besides the crime motion, the government will face confidence votes over the federal budget at the end of this month, plus a motion to extend the Afghanistan mission that is expected to be put to a vote in late March. However, it appeared yesterday that the crime motion would pass. NDP leader Jack Layton said his party would vote against the motion, but Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe said he had 'no problem' with it. Liberal leader Stephane Dion also vowed that his party would not fall for what he called a 'juvenile trick,' suggesting the Liberals will abstain from the vote. Mr. Dion accused the government of trying to engineer its own defeat before having to table the budget."
The Citizen noted that "Earlier, government House Leader Peter Van Loan warned there would be a "clear impasse" between the two chambers of Parliament if the Commons approved the motion, but the Senate doesn't pass the bill. If that happens, the prime minister could ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament, thus triggering an election, on the grounds the Senate is preventing the government from carrying out its agenda. Experts debated whether such a move would be constitutional, especially since Parliament last year passed a bill setting fixed election dates. The next election is set for October 2009, unless the opposition defeats the government."
The Ottawa Citizen reported on Feb. 8, 2008 ("Pass Crime Bill or Go to Polls, Tories Say") that "Looking more and more like it is bent on an election, the Harper government set another potential trap for the Liberals yesterday, introducing a motion urging the Senate to pass the government's violent-crime bill by the start of next month, but the Liberals promptly dismissed the move as a "juvenile trick." The motion, expected to be put to a vote next week, calls on the Senate to pass the Tackling Violent Crime Act by March 1. The government has declared it a confidence motion, meaning an election could be triggered if the measure is defeated."
According to the Citizen, "There are now three potential triggers for a spring election in the next seven weeks. Besides the crime motion, the government will face confidence votes over the federal budget at the end of this month, plus a motion to extend the Afghanistan mission that is expected to be put to a vote in late March. However, it appeared yesterday that the crime motion would pass. NDP leader Jack Layton said his party would vote against the motion, but Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe said he had 'no problem' with it. Liberal leader Stephane Dion also vowed that his party would not fall for what he called a 'juvenile trick,' suggesting the Liberals will abstain from the vote. Mr. Dion accused the government of trying to engineer its own defeat before having to table the budget."
The Citizen noted that "Earlier, government House Leader Peter Van Loan warned there would be a "clear impasse" between the two chambers of Parliament if the Commons approved the motion, but the Senate doesn't pass the bill. If that happens, the prime minister could ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament, thus triggering an election, on the grounds the Senate is preventing the government from carrying out its agenda. Experts debated whether such a move would be constitutional, especially since Parliament last year passed a bill setting fixed election dates. The next election is set for October 2009, unless the opposition defeats the government."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)