Riding a wave of enthusiasm about increasing prospects for marijuana law reform, hundreds of people poured into the Grand Hyatt Hotel in downtown San Francisco last Thursday for the 38th annual nat

Former Judge Leslie Crocker Snyder has made her career as a “tough on crime” prosecutor and “hang ‘em high” judge, reveling in the moniker "The Princess of Darkness." For years on the bench, she routinely sentenced low-level drug offenders to harsh Rockefeller drug law sentences without batting an eye.

Now, in a tight race for Manhattan District Attorney against former Assistant DAs and self-admitted former cocaine users (more on that below) Richard Aborn and Cyrus Vance, Jr., in next Tuesday’s election, Snyder seems to be changing her tune.

Citing her “progressive” vision, Snyder says : "For more than 20 years on the bench, I have supported alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent, first-time offenders by promoting programs that provide drug treatment, education, and job training. The most important work I did as a judge was finding young people who were not yet locked into the cycle of incarceration and violent crime, and working with all parties to find effective and appropriate sentencing that avoided incarceration and led to rehabilitation."

Some Rockefeller law victims, though, aren’t buying what Snyder is peddling. Writing in the Huffington Post, former Rockefeller law prisoner Tony Papa blasted Snyder for sentencing countless low-level drug offenders as "kingpins," including Jose Garcia, who died in a prison cell at age 69, serving a life sentence under the Rockefeller laws.

"Nowadays there is a new and improved Leslie Crocker Snyder," wrote Papa. "She is running for New York City District Attorney and, remarkably, now supports Rockefeller Drug Law reform. I almost fell off my chair when I heard this. She sounded nothing like the old "Princess of Darkness." Do I think Snyder really supports drug law reform? No, I don't. She knows that she needs the black and Latino vote. And she knows that public opinion has shifted, as the wastefulness and ineffectiveness of harsh sentences for drug law violations has been brought to light over the past decade. I guess running for a political office has a way of changing a person's thinking."

Here’s another Rockefeller law victim who isn’t buying either:

In a debate last week, Snyder admitted smoking pot, but both Aborn and Vance trumped that by admitting they had snorted cocaine as young men. Of course, both men did the mandatory ritual negation of their acts, with Aborn calling his coke-snorting “an error” and Vance saying his message to young people was that “drug use is something to be avoided.”

Aborn sounds pretty progressive on drug policy reform: "It's time to stop ruining young people's lives because of a single mistake," he says on his web site. "It's time to repeal the Rockefeller Drug Laws and replace them with a sensible policy grounded in public health and common sense. Drug kingpins deserve prison. First and second-time non-violent offenders deserve an opportunity to rebuild their lives. And the families of offenders unfairly caught up in the draconian Rockefeller laws deserve to be reunited."

And so does Cy Vance: "In April, Governor Paterson signed into law significant reforms to New York State’s draconian Rockefeller Drug laws,” he says on his web site. “As a prosecutor, a defense attorney, and member of the New York State Commission on Sentencing Reform which provided the blueprint for these overdue changes, I welcome the progress that has been made on this important issue. During the more than two decades I have been involved in sentencing issues, I have always been an advocate for moving toward a treatment model that protects public safety through rehabilitation where possible as opposed to a punitive model based on incarceration….As District Attorney, I will continue to work with the Governor and State Legislature to ensure that our drug laws include statewide treatment options and re-entry programs that break the cycle of crime by changing behavior and strengthening families."

But neither Alford nor Vance will come out and say that people should not be prosecuted for drug use or simple possession, like what they did in their youths. Maybe they don’t believe that. Maybe they think they should have been caught and punished for snorting a line or two. Maybe they think they should have been sent to drug treatment. But somehow, I doubt that. I think it’s more likely that just don’t think it would be politically expedient to say that absent harm to others, drug use should not be the state’s business. And that’s too bad.

I don’t live in Manhattan, so I don’t get to vote on Tuesday. I wouldn’t presume to tell New Yorkers how to vote, and I’m not sure which candidate I would vote for. But I know which one I wouldn’t vote for. Got that, Princess?

(This article was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

With three marijuana legalization initiatives filed so far (another one was filed last week) and a marijuana legalization bill pending in Sacramento, California is the epicenter of the ever-louder

Check out this sweet attack ad Pete Guither came up with:

It's time for a change from the failed policies of Senator Incumbent. He voted 24 times in favor of drug laws that increase the profits for black-market criminals -- from the gangs that roam the streets of our town to the drug cartels causing death and destruction in Mexico.

Senator Incumbent is actually opposed to setting age limits for drugs like marijuana -- even cocaine or heroin! He actually prefers that criminals decide at what age kids can buy drugs.

Senator Incumbent refuses to even discuss policy options that have been proven to reduce violence. What is he afraid of? Does he have a reason to keep drug profits high?

It's time for a change. Vote Challenger for Senate. For smart drug regulation that reduces violence -- protecting children, families, and our community. [DrugWarRant]

If we haven't already reached a point where this kind of thing could work, I think we'll be there soon. I've pitched some of my better-funded colleagues in drug policy reform on exactly this type of concept and it's something I think we'll be seeing before long.

The key is to drop a drug reform attack ad in the right race at the right time. We'd probably stick to an issue like medical marijuana, where the polling is so strongly in favor of reform. Even if the ad doesn’t do the trick by itself, it becomes part of the narrative of how a seemingly invincible incumbent got slaughtered. Visibly injuring a big name politician for opposing reform would be game-changing.

Municipal elections in British Columbia Saturday saw Vancouver get another in a string of pro-drug reform mayors, while a marijuana reformer was returned to the mayor's office in Grand Forks in the

Further evidence that "soft on crime" attacks are becoming politically toxic:

Some three dozen workers at a telemarketing call center in Indiana walked off the job rather than read an incendiary McCain campaign script attacking Barack Obama, according to two workers at the center and one of their parents.

Nina Williams, a stay-at-home mom in Lake County, Indiana, tells us that her daughter recently called her from her job at the center, upset that she had been asked to read a script attacking Obama for being "dangerously weak on crime," "coddling criminals," and for voting against "protecting children from danger."
...
The daughter, who wanted her name withheld fearing retribution from her employer, confirmed the story to us. "It was like at least 40 people," the daughter said. "People thought the script was nasty and they didn't wanna read it." [Talking Points Memo]

TPM reports that the call script was drawn from this robocall used in other states:

Hello, I'm calling for John McCain and the RNC, because Democrats are dangerously weak on crime. Barack Obama has voted against tougher penalties for street gangs, drug-related crimes, and protecting children from danger. Barack Obama and his liberal allies have a disturbing history of coddling criminals. so we can't trust their judgment to keep our families safe. This call was paid for by the Republican National Committee and McCain-Palin 2008 at 866 558-5591. Thank you, bye

Of all the ferocious bile that gets strewn about in a presidential election, it strikes me as quite remarkable that it was a crime-themed attack which finally broke the will of these callers. Telemarketing is a notoriously unscrupulous profession (no offense) and one would assume that nothing short of a visceral discomfort with the content would produce this kind of open revolt.

When telemarketers sacrifice pay during an economic crisis rather than read an angry "soft on crime" attack script, it really speaks volumes about the rapid descent of crime-themed political posturing. No one wants to here that crap anymore. The limitations of our criminal justice system have become horribly evident and it's growing more difficult to sell the idea that politicians who advocate reform are somehow detached from the realities of the crime issue. Accusing one's opponent of protecting criminals and endangering children just won't fly. Our politics are changing in subtle, yet significant ways. Some of the greatest obstacles on the path to reform may soon be behind us.

(This article was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

Election 2008

Dear friends,

In less than two weeks I will walk into a polling booth and vote my conscience. I’m one of the lucky ones.

On Election Day (November 4th), an estimated 5.3 million Americans will be barred from voting because of a felony conviction (in many cases for a simple drug law violation). I’ll be voting on their behalf.  And on behalf of the thousands of Americans, like my Uncle Tommy, who died last year because the government blocks access to sterile syringes. And for all the people who died from a drug overdose because their friends were too afraid of being arrested to call 911 for help. And for the 775,000 Americans who were arrested last year for nothing more than marijuana possession.

Where does your member of Congress stand on these issues? Check out our new voter guide to find out.

If there could be a ballot question that asked, “Should we end the war on drugs?” I would vote yes. I’m fed up with the mass incarceration of my fellow citizens, the reckless drug raids that leave innocent people dead, the rampant racial disparities, the wasted tax dollars, and the demonization of good people. There won’t be such a question on the November 4th ballot, although some ballots will have drug policy reform measures on them. And there will be the names of a lot of candidates seeking our vote. Some of the candidates support punitive drug policies; many others advocate common sense and reform.

I can’t tell you where every candidate in your area stands on drug policy reform, but I can tell you where your Representative in Congress stands on marijuana, syringe exchange, drug treatment, drug war funding and other issues.

It’s all in our 2008 Congressional Voter Guide. I hope you find it useful and interesting. You can find out your state’s election rules, registration information and voting process here.

If, like me, you’re one of the lucky ones and have a vote to cast, then stand up and vote on November 4th. If you’re barred from voting, make sure your friends and family vote. Let’s bring this drug war crashing down.

Sincerely,

Bill Piper
Director of National Affairs
Drug Policy Alliance Network

P.S. If you have friends or family members living in California, tell them to vote YES on Proposition 5, the biggest U.S. prison and sentencing reform since the repeal of alcohol Prohibition 75 years ago! Learn more at Prop5Yes.com.

Dear friends,

Most LEAP members are asking for tasks they can accomplish to help achieve our goal. Here is one that will only take a few minutes and will have tremendous impact on our legislators and other politicians.

Copied below is a message we hope you will send out to every local and national politician you care about to see how they respond to your concerns about the war on drugs. A LEAP member recently sent out a similar set of email messages and was amazed by the responses he received! Please copy and paste the following message, fill in the politician’s name and your own contact information at the bottom, and send it via E or snail-mail to every candidate you are considering supporting on Election Day.

This is our chance to make LEAP known to many politicians at a time when they are likely to reply to you. Please include kristin.daley@leap.cc as a bcc on any messages you send so we can learn how many politicians we are contacting.

Thank you!

Dear (Politician):

Before I cast my vote in the upcoming contest for your election, I must first pose a question to you:

Do you support and agree with the following statements and principles, based on the Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) http://www.leap.cc:

After nearly four decades of fueling the U.S. policy of a war on drugs with over a trillion tax dollars and 39 million arrests for nonviolent drug offenses, our confined population has quadrupled, making building prisons the fastest-growing industry in the United States. More than 2.3 million of our citizens are currently incarcerated, and every year we arrest an additional 1.9 million more, paralyzing our prison and court systems. Every year we choose to continue this war costs U.S. taxpayers another 70 billion dollars. Yet, despite all the lives destroyed and money wasted, illicit drugs are cheaper, more potent, and far easier for our children to access than they were 38 years ago at the beginning of the war on drugs. Meanwhile, people continue dying in our streets while drug barons and terrorists grow richer, bolder, and more heavily armed. This is the very definition of a failed public policy.

This is not a war on drugs—it’s a war on people: our children, our parents, ourselves.

The first thing we must do is admit that most of the deaths, diseases, crimes, and addictions attributed to drug use are actually caused by drug prohibition. Prohibition has paradoxically increased the number of people in the US above the age of twelve who use illegal drugs from 4 million (two percent of the 1970 population) to 112 million (46 percent of the 2005 population), according to DEA statistics. In June, 2007, the US Conference of Mayors unanimously called for an end to the war on drugs and for drug abuse to be dealt with as a health issue. Once we adopt that approach, we can stop the horrors associated with prohibition by removing the profit motive generated within the drug culture.

How do we do that? We end drug prohibition. We legalize all drugs so we can regulate and control them and keep them out of the hands of our children, who now report that it is easier for them to buy illicit drugs than cigarettes or alcohol. As long as these dangerous drugs are illegal, we relinquish control to the street thugs and international cartels, which have enormous monetary incentives to hook our children.

I look forward to your response on this important issue. If I do not hear back from you, I will assume that this issue is not important to you, or that you do not support the principles of LEAP, and I will act accordingly on Election Day.

Thank You,

Your name
Your address
Your phone numbers
Your email address

With the presidential election now less than a month away, Democratic candidate Barack Obama appears poised for victory, according to the m

Dear friends:

I get a lot of questions about what the presidential candidates have said or done on marijuana policy.

There are a lot of rumors about what Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. John McCain, and the other candidates may or may not have said about marijuana — and MPP specializes in that.

In fact, during the presidential primary campaign, MPP helped persuade all of the Democratic candidates and three of the Republican candidates to pledge to end the arrest of patients in states with medical marijuana laws.

If you're interested in knowing what the candidates have said and done, please watch our new video:

MPP is the only organization that's systematically influencing the presidential candidates to take positive positions on medical marijuana — and punishing those who don't. Would you please consider making a donation to support our work today?

Sincerely,

Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.

P.S. As I've mentioned in previous alerts, a major philanthropist has committed to match the first $3.0 million that MPP can raise from the rest of the planet in 2008. This means that your donation today will be doubled.

As public attitudes surrounding the war on drugs continue to evolve, we’ll begin to see more of this type of thing:

Containing parts of Kirkland, Redmond, Woodinville, and points east, the 45th Legislative District is hardly a hotbed of radicalism. But the two candidates for one of the district's two House seats share a position well out of the political mainstream: They both advocate wholesale changes to the War on Drugs.

In his time away from the capital, incumbent State Rep. Roger Goodman (D-Kirkland) heads the King County Bar Association's Drug Policy Project, where he works on moving drug policy's focus from crime and punishment to public health. His challenger, Toby Nixon (R-Kirkland), who held the seat from 2002 to 2006 before leaving to run for the state Senate (he lost his bid for an open seat to Eric Oemig), has spoken out in defense of Washington's medical marijuana law and pushed a bill requiring performance audits of drug-enforcement policies. [Seattle Weekly]

So will the candidates start arguing over who’s going to do more to end the drug war?

Noting that "some have observed that it's unfortunate that we're running against each other," Nixon adds that he's not sure he and Goodman have any disagreements on drug policy reform. But he wishes Goodman had followed his lead and pushed more drug policy reform bills as a legislator.

There you have it folks! The first candidate for public office to ever get called out for not trying hard enough to reform drug policy. This is not a coincidence, this is a sign of the times. It won’t be over tomorrow -- we’d be foolish to think that -- but we are entering a phase where we’ll begin to see and hear the drug policy debate in new forums. Once reform enters the mainstream political curriculum, the tone changes, the pot jokes start sounding immature and the things that actually matter can finally be discussed.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

A couple weeks ago, I noted the contradiction between Obama's call for reduced incarceration of first-time nonviolent drug offenders and his support for the heinous Byrne Grant program that has filled our prisons with petty offenders and subsidized mindblowing episodes of racist drug war excess.

These completing agendas in Obama’s crime platform deserve more discussion, thus Radley Balko has a piece at Slate that digs into this.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

Paul Armentano at NORML points to Sarah Palin's glorification of "Joe Sixpack" in the vice presidential debate. Indeed, one could scarcely overstate the naked hypocrisy of portraying daily drinkers as American heroes, while our nation continues to arrest nearly a million Americans each year for using marijuana.

I usually leave the alcohol analogy alone, assuming that it often speaks for itself, and when it doesn’t, the guys at SAFER can be counted on to point it out. But there are moments -- like hearing a major party VP candidate canonize alcohol users in a massively public forum – that remind us how truly discriminatory and fundamentally illogical this disparity is. If regulated sale is the best policy for alcohol, then it is the best policy for marijuana. And if people who drink a sixpack after work can be American heroes, so too are those who derive pleasure and relaxation from cannabis.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

According to a Zogby/Inter-American Dialogue poll released Thursday, more than three-quarters of likely voters polled said America's

Press Release

EMBARGOED UNTIL:                                                                 

Sept. 24, 2008, 11:00 AM                                                                   

Contact:  Monica Pratt Raffanel, (678) 261-8118 or (202) 822-6700                                                                               

Press teleconference today! Wednesday, September 24 at 11 a.m. ET

Dial In Number: (800) 593-9034

Passcode:  FAMM (3266)

NEW POLL: Americans Oppose Mandatory Minimums,

Will Vote for Candidates Who Feel the Same

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A new poll released today by Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) shows widespread support for ending mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent offenses and that Americans will vote for candidates who feel the same way. 

·         Fully 78 percent of Americans (nearly eight in 10) agree that courts – not Congress – should determine an individual’s prison sentence. 

·         Six in 10 (59 percent) oppose mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent offenders.

·         A majority of Americans (57 percent) polled said they would likely vote for a candidate for Congress who would eliminate all mandatory minimums for nonviolent crimes.

“Politicians have voted for mandatory minimum sentences so they could appear ‘tough on crime’ to their constituents. They insist that their voters support these laws, but it’s just not true,” says Julie Stewart, president and founder of FAMM.  “Republicans and Democrats support change and that should encourage members of Congress to reach across the aisle next year and work together to reform mandatory minimums.  Mandatory sentencing reform is not a partisan issue, but an issue about fairness and justice that transcends party lines.” 

During a time of financial crisis and uncertainty in the United States, reviewing current criminal justice policies and reforming mandatory minimums for nonviolent drug offenders is an option that Democratic and Republican lawmakers are considering.  Although neither is endorsing FAMM’s poll or report, Senator Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) are both concerned about America’s prison and sentencing system.

“America is locking up people at astonishing rates. In the name of ‘getting tough on crime,’ there are now 2.2 million Americans in federal, state, and local prisons and jails and over 7 million under some form of correction supervision, including probation and parole. We have the largest prison population in the world,” says Senator Jim Webb (D-Va.), who is chairing a symposium on criminal justice and prison issues in October.  “This growth is not a response to increasing crime rates, but a reliance on prisons and long mandatory sentences as the common response to crime. It is time for America’s leadership to realize what the public understands – our approach is costly, unfair and impractical.”

“Mandatory minimums wreak havoc on a logical system of sentencing guidelines,” says Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.). “Mandatory minimums turn today’s hot political rhetoric into the nightmares of many tomorrows for judges and families.”

"This poll suggests that a majority of Americans are open to re-examining this issue and moving to a court-driven sentencing model,” said Sparky Zivin, Research Director at StrategyOne.

The poll bolsters the findings of FAMM’s comprehensive new report, Correcting Course: Lessons from the 1970 Repeal of Mandatory Minimums, which describes how Congress repealed mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses in 1970 – and had no trouble getting reelected. 

“Our report and poll show that lawmakers can vote to reform mandatory minimums for nonviolent offenses and live to tell the story.  Republicans and Democrats alike don’t want these laws.  They don’t work, they cost taxpayers a fortune, and people believe Courts can sentence better than Congress can.  Another repeal of mandatory drug sentences isn’t just doable, it’s doable right now,” says Molly Gill, author of Correcting Course. 

The report details how Congress created mandatory minimum prison sentences for drug offenders in 1951 and repealed them in 1970 because the laws failed to stop drug abuse, addiction and trafficking. It also finds that after 20 years of experience, current mandatory minimums have failed as badly as those enacted in the 1950s.  Correcting Course concludes that mandatory minimum sentences:

• Have not discouraged drug use in the United States.

• Have not reduced drug trafficking.

• Have created soaring state and federal corrections costs.

• Impose substantial indirect costs on families by imprisoning spouses, parents, and breadwinners for lengthy periods.

• Are not applied evenly, disproportionately impacting minorities and resulting in vastly different sentences for equally blameworthy offenders.

• Undermine federalism by turning state-level offenses into federal crimes.

• Undermine separation of powers by usurping judicial discretion.

Eric Sterling, counsel to the House Judiciary Committee when mandatory sentences were enacted, says, “In 1986, we got stuck with some of the most punitive, least effective criminal sentencing laws ever created. Mandatory minimums haven’t stopped the drug trade.  They haven’t locked up the big dealers and importers.  They’re applied to small fries, not kingpins.  It’s a waste of taxpayer dollars to lock up a street-level dealer for 10 years when that money could be spent on treatment, drug courts, or going after the people bringing in boatloads of drugs every year.  Getting rid of mandatory minimums is about getting our priorities straight.”

Correcting Course includes comprehensive strategies for how Congress can repeal these ineffective laws today and better reflect the popular attitude among Americans, as brought out in the findings of the poll. 

“Mandatory minimums are among the worst criminal justice policies ever adopted in this country.  They treat all offenders the same, when the most sacred principle of American sentencing law is that punishment should fit the individual and the crime. Repealing these laws isn’t impossible – it’s been done before.  The next Congress should do it again,” says FAMM founder and president Julie Stewart.

FAMM’s poll was conducted by the independent public opinion research firm StrategyOne.  The survey was conducted by telephone between July 31 and August 3, 2008 with 1,000 adults randomly selected across the United States.  The margin of sampling error for the poll is plus or minus 3.1 percent for 95 out of 100 cases.

Families Against Mandatory Minimums is a national nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that supports fair and proportionate sentencing laws that allow judicial discretion while maintaining public safety. For more information on FAMM, visit www.famm.org or call Monica Pratt Raffanel at 678-261-8118.

###

Dear friends:

Want to take part in a groundbreaking experiment?  The background ...

Last year, the New Hampshire House of Representatives defeated — by an incredibly close 186-177 vote — a bill that would have legalized medical marijuana in the state. Just nine votes out of 400 members prevented this bill from passing.

Then, earlier this year, the New Hampshire House actually passed a bill — with a 191-143 vote — to decriminalize the personal possession of marijuana (and not just for medical use), before the state Senate snuffed the bill out.

New Hampshire is on the verge of passing medical marijuana legislation and marijuana decriminalization legislation.  With the November elections coming up in just six weeks, we need to ensure that good state legislators get reelected ... and some bad ones get unelected ... to increase our level of support in the New Hampshire Legislature.

THE EXPERIMENT

Is the marijuana policy reform community ready to become a serious player in state legislative races?

Because New Hampshire legislative districts are so small, it doesn't cost much to become a major player in these races and help good candidates win. This is a state where we could really make a difference by generating just a few dozen donations to each good candidate.

Intrigued? On this site, we've listed the supportive candidates who are in the tightest races — and whose campaigns are therefore the most crucial to passing our legislation early next year.  Our Web site also makes it easy for people to donate to their campaigns.

Other interest groups do this sort of thing all the time, in order to ensure that candidates who support their issues get elected. We're wondering if the marijuana policy reform community is interested in playing at this level, as well. (By the way, this is nonpartisan project that includes Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian candidates.)

Most candidates for the New Hampshire House raise and spend only a few thousand dollars on their entire campaign. So just a few dozen donations to each candidate from around the country will make a huge impression on the candidate — and a huge difference in the candidate's campaign.

If this experiment works and raises money to help these good candidates win their races, then MPP will likely roll this out in two or three states in the next election cycle. 

I want to thank you in advance if you choose to participate in this experiment!

Sincerely,

Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.

P.S. As I've mentioned in previous alerts, a major philanthropist has committed to match the first $3.0 million that MPP can raise from the rest of the planet in 2008. This means that any donation you make to MPP today will be doubled.

At a campaign appearance in Jacksonville, FL, Barack Obama proposed federal drug war funding as a solution to the city’s problems with violent crime:

I will ensure that we fund the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program, which has been critical to creating the anti-gang and anti-drug task forces our communities need. And I will make sure our federal law enforcement agencies are equipped to fight terrorism and crime by ensuring that the FBI and DEA are appropriately staffed and that federal-local law enforcement task forces have the support they need. [Florida Times-Union]

He said the same thing in New Orleans, thus it’s becoming increasingly clear that Obama really does believe that aggressive drug enforcement can function as a crime control mechanism. For a quick tutorial on how absurd that is, I’d refer him to Mexico, where President Calderon’s attempted crackdown has escalated violence throughout the country with no end in sight.

Moreover, Obama’s praise for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grants ignores that program’s role in producing some of the most egregious civil rights catastrophes in modern drug war history. Byrne funding was responsible for the notorious fiascos in Tulia and Hearne, TX, in which large numbers of innocent African-Americans were rounded up and framed for drug crimes. Overwhelming abuse of the program led Texas to ban multi-jurisdictional drug task forces entirely.

Obama’s remarks yesterday are therefore simply impossible to reconcile with his calls for "shifting the paradigm" in the war on drugs. He has frequently called attention to the over-incarceration of non-violent drug offenders, yet now pledges to continue the exact tactics that have played such a prominent role in producing our alarming prison population. As Radley Balko explains:

Because most Byrne grants are also tied directly to drug arrests, they encourage local police departments to use their manpower and resources on nonviolent drug offenses instead of more serious crimes like rape, robbery, or murder.

It seems Obama is trying to have it both ways, scoring points for forward-thinking ideas on incarceration at the national level, while simultaneously promising more policing and drug enforcement to audiences that are concerned about crime. I’d still prefer to think he’s serious about working to reduce our prison population, but he won’t get far without looking at the way our drug laws are enforced. If he plans to dangle federal drug war dollars in front of bloodthirsty local narcotics task forces, you can bet those guys will do what they do best: fill our prisons as fast as they can with anyone they can get their hands on.

That’s just how the drug war works. Politicians fund prohibition. Prohibition funds violence. Politicians feel pressured and fund more prohibition. If Obama wants to change the outcome, he’ll have to change the process.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

Here is the link to "2008 Presidential Candidates’ Platforms on Criminal Justice" prepared by the Sentencing Project in March 2008: http://www.sentencingproject.org/tmp/File/PresidentialCandidatesPlatform....

Dear friends:

I get a lot of questions about what the presidential candidates have said or done on marijuana policy.

There are a lot of rumors about what Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. John McCain, and the other candidates may or may not have said about marijuana — and MPP specializes in that.

In fact, during the presidential primary campaign, MPP helped persuade all of the Democratic candidates and three of the Republican candidates to pledge to end the arrest of patients in states with medical marijuana laws.

If you're interested in knowing what the candidates have said and done, please watch our new video:

MPP is the only organization that's systematically influencing the presidential candidates to take positive positions on medical marijuana — and punishing those who don't. Would you please consider making a donation to support our work today?

Sincerely,

Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.

P.S. As I've mentioned in previous alerts, a major philanthropist has committed to match the first $3.0 million that MPP can raise from the rest of the planet in 2008. This means that your donation today will be doubled.

PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP NEEDED

********************PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE************************

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #384 - Sunday, 7 September 2008

"What if major party nominees Barack Obama and John McCain were pressed to state their positions on drugs and incarceration?" writes syndicated columnist Neal Peirce.

Please raise the issue with those running for public office and by sending letters to the editor. Please ask your local newspapers to print the column below.

As MAP's volunteer activists find this column printed in other newspapers they will be listed at the top of this webpage http://www.mapinc.org/author/Neal+Peirce

**********************************************************************

Contact: opinion@seattletimes.com

Pubdate: Sun, 7 Sep 2008
Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Copyright: 2008 Washington Post Writers Group
Author: Neal Peirce, Syndicated Columnist

REAL COMMANDER NEEDED FOR THE WAR ON DRUGS

Will America's ill-starred "war on drugs" and its expanding prison culture make it into the presidential campaign?

Standard wisdom says "no way."

We may have the world's highest rate of incarceration -- with only 5 percent of global population, 25 percent of prisoners worldwide. We may be throwing hundreds of thousands of nonviolent drug offenders, many barely of age, behind bars -- one reason a stunning one out of every 100 Americans is now imprisoned. We may have created a huge "prison-industrial complex" of prison builders, contractors and swollen criminal justice bureaucracies.

Federal, state and local outlays for law enforcement and incarceration are costing, according to a Senate committee estimate, a stunning $200 billion annually, siphoning off funds from enterprises that actually build our future: universities, schools, health, infrastructure.

We are reaping the whirlwind of "get tough" on crime statutes ranging from "three strikes you're in" to mandatory sentences to reincarcerating recent prisoners for minor parole violations. And every year we're seeing hundreds of thousands of convicts leave prison with scant chances of being employed, no right to vote, no access to public housing, high levels of addiction, illiteracy and mental illness. Overwhelmed by the odds against them, at least 50 percent are rearrested within two years.

A serious set of problems, a shadow over our national future? No doubt. But do our politicians talk much about alternatives? No way -- they typically find it too risky to be attacked as "soft on crime."

But let's imagine -- what if major party nominees Barack Obama and John McCain were pressed to state their positions on drugs and incarceration?

I've combed through statements by both men. My early reading is that with McCain, there'd be a thin chance of reform, but under Obama, much brighter prospects.

It is true that both men favored -- Obama actually co-sponsored -- the federal Second Chance Act, passed this year, which provides up to $360 million to support job training, mentors and counseling for inmates released from custody.

But McCain has been routinely "hawkish" on drug policy, endorsing higher penalties for drug-selling, supporting the death penalty for drug kingpins, and opposing any softening of laws forbidding marijuana use, which he characterizes as a dangerous "gateway drug."

Obama, by contrast, expresses serious concern that at 2 million-plus inmates, "we have by far the largest prison population, per capita, of any place on earth." He endorses full justice and imprisonment for dangerous criminals but a far more nuanced approach to drug cases in particular.

"Anybody who sees the devastating impact of the drug trade in the inner cities, or the methamphetamine trade in rural communities, knows that this is a huge problem," he recently told a Rolling Stone interviewer. "I believe in shifting the paradigm, shifting the model, so that we can focus on a more public-health approach."

During the primary season Obama spoke with special concern about nonviolent drug offenders, many as young as 18 to 20: "The worst thing we can do is to lock them up for a long period of time, without any education if they're functionally illiterate, without any skills or training. They're now convicted felons" -- perhaps 25 or 26 years old -- "out on the streets and can't be hired by anybody."

His conclusion: The more focus put on diversion programs, drug courts, treatment of substance abusers, and "encourage training and skills and literacy ... the more effective we are in reducing recidivism rates."

Obama is clearly not yet willing to discuss lifting prohibitions on marijuana or other drugs. But he would seem open to lead the country in a serious debate about our drug and incarceration policies -- a dramatic break from recent presidencies, both Republican and Democratic.

Arguably, that's precisely the discussion the nation needs. America's prisoner total has tripled over the last two decades, with systems bursting at the seams -- California, for example, at 175 percent of capacity, Alabama at 200 percent. Yet North Carolina anticipates 1,000 more prisoners a year; Pennsylvania, 1,500; Arizona, 2,200; Florida 3,000.

Small wonder major prisoner re-entry and diversion facilities for less serious offenders are being set up in Kansas, Michigan, Georgia and other states. California this November votes on a landmark "nonviolent offender rehabilitation" initiative designed to divert thousands from the state's bloated $10-billion-a-year prison system.

It's high time, says Georgia Corrections Commissioner Jim Donald, "to differentiate between those offenders we are 'afraid of' and those we are just 'mad at.' "

Talk about a serious national issue on which we could use some presidential leadership -- not dictating precise answers, but moving us to debate alternatives. It's been 20 years since drugs and prisons have even been mentioned in the televised presidential debates. Maybe not just Obama but McCain too could surprise us with some fresh ideas and promise of leadership as president. But we probably won't hear this unless reporters press the issue.

**********************************************************************

Additional suggestions for writing LTEs are at our Media Activism Center: http://www.mapinc.org/resource/#guides

**********************************************************************

PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER

Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent letter list (sentlte@mapinc.org) if you are subscribed, or by emailing a copy to heath@mapinc.org if you are not subscribed. Your letter will then be forwarded to the list so others may learn from your efforts.

Subscribing to the Sent LTE list ( sentlte@mapinc.org ) will help you to review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing efforts.

To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see: http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form