Media Racial Profiling stopthedrugwar.org
Out from the Shadows HEA Drug Provision Drug War Chronicle Perry Fund DRCNet en EspaŮol Speakeasy Blogs About Us Home
Why Legalization? NJ Racial Profiling Archive Subscribe Donate DRCNet em PortuguÍs Latest News Drug Library Search

The Week Online with DRCNet
(renamed "Drug War Chronicle" effective issue #300, August 2003)

Issue #147, 7/28/00

"Raising Awareness of the Consequences of Drug Prohibition"

Phillip S. Smith, Editor
David Borden, Executive Director

subscribe for FREE now! ---- make a donation ---- search

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  1. Corrections System Continues to Bloat With 458,000 Drug War Prisoners: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Justice Policy Institute Crunch the Numbers in Separate Reports
  2. Supreme Court Rules, Federal Sentencing Structures Tremble
  3. See You in Philly: Shadow Convention Set to Convene Sunday
  4. Forbes Exposes McCaffrey's Crusade Against "Cheech and Chong Medicine"
  5. Drug Policy Letter Issue Focuses on Drug War Prisoners, DRCNet Launches New Prison/Incarceration Info List
  6. Six of One, Half a Dozen of the Other: Important Amendments to Anti-Methamphetamine Act
  7. Newsbrief: Recalcitrant Feds to Appeal Oakland Marijuana Club Decision
  8. Liar of the Week
  9. Media Scan: salon.com, Washington Post
  10. Alerts: Colombia, Mandatory Minimums, California, New York, Washington
  11. HEA Campaign
  12. Event Calendar
  13. Editorial: Shocking Incrementalism
(read last week's issue)

(visit the Week Online archives)


1. Corrections System Continues to Bloat With 458,000 Drug War Prisoners: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Justice Policy Institute Crunch the Numbers in Separate Reports

The number of people under some form of correctional supervision -- jail, prison, probation, or parole -- has reached a record 6.3 million, the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced in its semiannual report on corrections. That report, as well as a treasure trove of related statistics is available online at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/correct.htm.

According to the BJS numbers, the number of people on probation or parole has reached a record high of 4.5 million. Twenty-four percent of the probationers were under criminal justice system supervision for drug offenses. The number of prisoners stood at 1.86 million in June 1999, the last month for which statistics were available, but is thought to have passed 2 million last February.

For Marc Mauer, Assistant Director of the Sentencing Project, an independent criminal justice policy analysis group, the numbers show that little has changed.

"Once again we see a new record being set; it's been the same way each year for the last 25 years," Mauer told DRCNet.

Mauer also pointed out that parole and probation departments, less glamorous components of the criminal justice juggernaut than funding new policemen on the streets or building imposing new prisons, are being stretched to the limit.

"One concern," said Mauer, "is that about 2/3 of these people are on probation or parole, and what's happened with the enormous increase in imprisonment is that we've diverted resources away from probation and parole departments to prison cells."

"It's very difficult for probation and parole departments to do the job they're supposed to do," he continued, "and it becomes a vicious cycle. If they don't have the resources to do the job correctly, judges and communities will lose confidence in them, violations could then increase or judges may not use probation or parole if they don't believe the system can provide the right level of supervision or service."

BJS statistician Allen J, Beck told the Washington Post, meanwhile, that the likelihood of drug offenders being sentenced to prison had begun to decrease over the past decade, but the increased number of drug arrests meant that growth in the prison population continued to increase, although at a lower rate.

According to BJS, between 1990 and midyear 1999, the incarcerated population grew an average 5.8% annually. The rate of growth in state prison populations declined during the 12-month period ending June 30, 1999 to 3.1%. The number of federal prisoners, however, rose by 9.9% (up 10,614 prisoners, the largest 12-month gain ever reported).

As Mauer observed, "Absolute numbers are still going up, although one would have thought that with crime rates declining for seven straight years, we would have seen a reduction."

"Instead," said Mauer, "The numbers remain relatively steady. This is driven by drug policy, mandatory minimums, and the significant expansion of policing."

"Anytime you add more law enforcement officers, it is likely to lead to more arrests. The question," said Mauer, "is how can we use law enforcement in more of a problem-solving manner instead of just arresting more and more people."

Days after BJS released its latest numbers, the Justice Policy Institute released its own study, "Poor Prescription: The Costs of Imprisoning Drug Offenders in the United States. That study is available online at http://www.cjcj.org/drug/.

Based on data from the National Corrections Reporting System, as well as BJS numbers and statistics from the California Department of Corrections, the JPI study asked and answered the following questions, among others:

Q: What proportion of prisoners are drug offenders and how much does it cost?

A: Drug offenders make up 23.7% of the prison population, and the cost of holding them behind bars will be over $9 billion this year.

Q: How have comparative rates of incarceration for prisoners versus non-violent and violent offenders changed over time?

A: From 1980 to 1997, the number of all offenders rose 82%, non-violent offenders rose 207%, and the number of imprisoned drug offenders increased an astounding 1040%, or nearly eleven times.

Q: How do rates for blacks and whites compare?

A: Blacks were incarcerated for drug offenses at a rate 14 times higher than that of whites. While the rate of white drug offenders sent to prison doubled from 1986 to 1996, the rate for black offenders quintupled. Even in states that registered an overall decrease in drug incarceration rates, the rates for blacks increased.

The JPI report is sure to fuel electoral and legislative efforts in several states to reform sentencing structures. A California initiative seeks to divert drug offenders from prison into treatment, while in New York, the state's head judge has ordered a statewide drug court diversion program. In Michigan, the governor and state legislature recently modified the state's draconian mandatory life without parole drug law provisions. A recent Field poll reports that the California treatment-not-prison initiative is gaining 64% voter approval.

And now comes word from Capitol Hill that Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus, is preparing an omnibus bill to respond to the drug war's follies on a comprehensive basis. That bill will, according to a July 27th press release, address mandatory minimum sentencing reform, treatment as an alternative to prison, and means to facilitate the reentry of former drug war prisoners into society.

Observers close to Conyers say the bill will be introduced this fall.

In this session, Conyers has offered successful amendments to bills in the Judiciary Committee that would establish federal drug courts for the first time and create a Congressional finding that mandatory minimums discriminate against African Americans.


2. Supreme Court Rules, Federal Sentencing Structures Tremble

In a little-noticed ruling with potentially huge ramifications for the hundreds of thousands of people imprisoned under state and federal drug laws, the Supreme Court has restricted judges' ability to increase sentences based on facts never prosecuted or weighed by a jury.

The decision and subsequent rulings in the federal courts threaten to bury prosecutors and courts under a wave of appeals from prisoners whose sentences were increased by judges under determinate sentencing schemes. These include federal drug laws, under which juries determine only guilt or innocence and judges determine sentence lengths based on findings of drug quantities or types involved.

The case, Apprendi v. New Jersey, slipped by the mass media when it was decided on June 26, during the same week as heavily anticipated Supreme Court rulings on Miranda rights, the Boy Scouts, and partial birth abortion. But the case, along with a subsequent ruling from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals that extended Apprendi to thousands of federal drug cases, is calling into question the entire federal sentencing structure. In the wake of its Apprendi decision, the Supreme Court also reversed a Colorado drug case and sent it back to the 10th Circuit Court for reconsideration, lending more hope to the 61,000 thousand persons held under federal drug laws.

"Everybody and their brother is going to challenge their sentence, as well they should," University of Texas law professor Susan Klein told the Washington Post. She told the Post that she and a colleague have identified 39 federal and 20 state laws that may be unconstitutional under Apprendi. "It's going to be a disaster," she said.

Still, defense attorneys do not expect a sudden exodus of drug war prisoners from behind the razor wire. Carmen Hernandez, co-chair of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers' Post-Conviction Relief committee, told DRCNet that the decision's effects are just beginning to be felt.

"There have been only a handful of cases so far, and the courts are applying Apprendi in a very narrow sense," Hernandez said. "In the few cases that have come down, Apprendi didn't alter the sentence at all because the sentences didn't exceed the statutory maximum."

And, warned Hernandez, "If you are charged with multiple counts, judges can get around Apprendi by running sentences consecutively instead of concurrently."

Christopher Warnock, a Washington, DC, defense attorney, also sees practical limits to Apprendi's impact. "If your case has already been appealed, then the courts won't let you raise it. If you are on appeal now, you absolutely need to raise it as an issue," he told DRCNet.

"Apprendi is a very important case, said Warnock. "There has been a basic assault on civil liberties from all directions, but the Apprendi decision says 'wait a minute, we're going too far, we're trashing basic institutions.' Apprendi restores the power of the jury. The jury is the premier fact-finding mechanism in our system of justice, and we should respect it, not undermine or erode its power."

The ruling had its genesis in a New Jersey hate crime. In December 1994, Apprendi fired shots at the house of his African-American neighbors and told arresting officers he didn't want blacks in his neighborhood. The state of New Jersey charged him with some 22 counts, including a hate crime charge. He eventually accepted a plea bargain in which he pled guilty to three counts, not including the hate crime count, which would have allowed the judge to "enhance" Apprendi's sentence if, "by a preponderance of evidence," he found that the shooting was racially motivated. Apprendi faced a 10-year maximum sentence on the most serious count, a weapons charge.

During the sentencing phase of his trial, however, the state introduced a motion to enhance the sentence on the grounds that the shooting was a hate crime. The judge agreed and sentenced Apprendi to 12 years on the firearms count, two more years than the law otherwise allowed.

Apprendi appealed, arguing that the 14th Amendment's due process clause, which applies the federal Bill of Rights to state criminal courts, required New Jersey to honor the Sixth Amendment's injunction that only a jury can find a defendant guilty of a felony.

The Supreme Court agreed in a 5-4 vote, notable for finding Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas on the side of a criminal defendant. Both authored separate concurring opinions that may undercut the mandatory sentencing guidelines used in federal drug cases. Both jurists wrote that they want juries to rule on all facts that increase prison time, not just those that enhance a sentence past its statutory maximum.

The majority opinion explicitly chose not to address sentencing guidelines, but with only three additional votes, Scalia and Thomas could invalidate most federal sentences handed down since 1987.

In the majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote: "The Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury, taken together, entitle a criminal defendant to a jury determination that he is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt."

Thus, wrote Stevens: "The Constitution requires that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum, other than the fact of a prior conviction, must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

It's only fair, say defense attorneys. "Right now, you can be sentenced for conduct you've been acquitted of if the judge rules it is true by the preponderance of the evidence," Alexandria, VA, attorney James Clark told the Post.

But defenders of the status quo are worried. Justice Stephen Breyer, who helped craft the federal sentencing guideline system, seemed particularly shrill in his dissent. Looking down from the heights, Breyer scoffed at the notion that juries should find the elements of a crime, calling it "a procedural ideal." Worse still in Breyer's view, which apparently places a higher constitutional premium on efficiency than on common ideas of fairness, the ruling was "impractical."

"[T]he real world of criminal justice cannot hope to meet any such ideal. It can function only with the help of procedural compromises, particularly in respect to sentencing," wrote the jurist.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Scalia scolded Breyer, writing that his dissent "proceeds on the erroneous and all-too-common assumption that the Constitution means what we think it ought to mean. It does not; it means what it says. And the guarantee that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to... trial, by an impartial jury" has no intelligible content unless it means that all the facts which must exist in order to subject the defendant to a legally prescribed punishment must be found by the jury."

Breyer's plaints also earned the ire of DC defense attorney Warnock. "Liberals like Breyer are more concerned with the smooth functioning of the machinery then they are with democracy," he told DRCNet. "This shows a fundamental disrespect for democracy. If efficiency is the highest value, we may as well dispense with the court system altogether and just let the cops arrest and imprison people."

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sandra O'Connor also raised alarm about the ruling's potential impact on the federal sentencing structure. Calling the ruling "a watershed change in constitutional law," O'Connor complained that the principle enunciated in Apprendi would wreak havoc with federal drug sentencing guidelines.

Its effect on sentences under the guidelines would be "unsettling," wrote O'Connor. The decision implies that such determinate sentencing schemes would be unconstitutional, she added, and concluded with a dire warning: "Thus... the Court's decision threatens to unleash a flood of petitions by convicted defendants seeking to invalidate their sentences in whole or in part on the authority of the Court's decision today."

Citing the 57,691 federal criminal cases and more than 14 million state criminal cases filed in 1998 and noting that many states have determinate-sentencing schemes, O'Connor concluded that the number of appeals based on Apprendi would be "colossal."

Hernandez is not so sure. "If Apprendi is saying this system is improper, then the whole notion of guideline sentencing goes out the window," she told DRCNet. "But that hasn't happened yet. Right now, the courts are continuing to say that as long as they are imposing a sentence lesser than the statutory maximum, they can do that."

"The real story with Apprendi is whether its notion of what is just and what the Constitution requires, whether those guarantees will be extended," Hernandez continued. "If they are, a lot of the concepts under which the guidelines operate will no longer be upheld."

The Department of Justice, meanwhile, has convened an emergency meeting to examine Apprendi's ramifications, and US Attorneys are beginning to take the ruling into account as they prosecute new cases. In a case reported by the Washington Post, three weeks ago prosecutors in Alexandria, VA, asked a US District Judge to instruct jurors that they needed to decide specifically whether the defendant possessed more than five grams of cocaine.

That does not surprise Hernandez. "I'm sure the Department of Justice is responding to this, especially in deciding how to charge cases in the future," she told DRCNet.

But, Hernandez continued, "Even though some of the judges' and US Attorneys' power may have been taken away, the horror of this whole system remains intact. The government still has the power to threaten defendants with harsh penalties to encourage plea bargains. People have pled guilty because they were looking at life without parole if they lost. You're seeing examples of that right now in the Rampart [Los Angeles] corruption scandal."


3. See You in Philly: Shadow Convention Set to Convene Sunday

The first of two Shadow Conventions timed to coincide with the major party conventions will begin this Sunday in Philadelphia as the Republican Party meets to enthrone George W. Bush as its presidential nominee.

The Shadow Conventions are the brainchild of author and columnist Arianna Huffington and a bevy of policy analysts, reformers, public officials, entertainers, and other concerned citizens. Disenchanted with the sagging spectacle of the major party conventions and with the parties' unwillingness or inability to deal with critical issues, Shadow Convention organizers have created an alternative designed to attract the swarming mass media, bring the issues to the public attention, and build alliances for change that cut across multiple issues.

Each Shadow Convention will focus on different aspects of three issues considered critical by organizers: campaign finance reform, the failed war on drugs, and poverty and wealth inequality.

Of special interest to DRCNet readers will be the sessions devoted to drug policy, where a number of well-known (and not so well-known) figures will dissect the damage done by the drug war and look for ways out of its gloomy grasp. Among the featured speakers on drug policy day (Tuesday, August 2nd) will be New Mexico Republican Gov. Gary Johnson, outspoken in support of broad drug policy reform, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Gus Smith, father of drug war POW Kemba Smith, and a host of prominent drug reform movement figures.

In addition, the drug policy day will feature several panels -- mandatory minimums, culture jamming the drug war, and criminalization and stigmatization -- as well as music and humor at an evening Shadow Cabaret.

Complete information on both Shadow Conventions, including detailed schedules for all four days of each event, is available online at http://www.shadowconventions.com.

DRCNet will be there, and we strongly encourage everyone with an interest in drug policy or the other issues on the agenda to attend.

To get a sense of how the event is coming along and what it hopes to accomplish, DRCNet spoke with Deborah Small, Director of Public Policy and Community Outreach for the Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation, the conveners and primary organizers of the Shadow Conventions' drug policy component. Here are some highlights of that conversation:

WOL: We are just days away from the Shadow Convention now. What kind of interest has the mass media displayed so far?

Small: So far, we have a commitment from CNN, which will cover us from 10:00 to 2:00 each day, as well as some cable access stations and local broadcast stations. We have not yet gotten a commitment from the national networks. There has been lots of interest from print and radio journalists. The big print outlets have been providing some coverage already, particularly around the wealth gap component and particularly Call to Renewal, and of course, lots of comment and speculation about Sen. John McCain's appearance and what that means for the Republican Party. There have been favorable columns, too, such as Judy Mann's call for a war on the drug war in the Washington Post.

WOL: You've been working on this for some time now. How many people do you expect, and what sorts?

Small: Our venue holds a thousand people, and we're hoping to fill it each day. At last count, we already had 600 people registered online for drug reform day in Philadelphia. I'm not sure about the other days because the conveners of those sessions have separate web sites. We also expect a very good turnout in Los Angeles for the Shadow Convention there.

What's really interesting about the attendees is that is looks like it's going to be a real representative cross-section of the public. Unlike the major party delegates, however, these are people who didn't run to be delegates, but who are committed to working for change on these issues. We will have religious leaders, community organizers, students, families of prisoners, as well as celebrities such as Bill Maher of Politically Incorrect and Warren Beatty, and don't forget elected officials.

WOL: The Shadow Conventions are clearly an effort to build support for grassroots change on these issues. What are the prospects for cross-fertilization among the three broad topics?

Small: It is clear to people that the issues are related to each other. What is central is the role of money in politics. Right now, the role of big money is the principal impediment to serious legislative action for reform on many issues. People understand that in order to make any headway on their issue, they need to work with the others as well.

WOL: The mission statement on drug policy lays out a number of reform planks, but it doesn't mention legalization or the controversies around drug courts and coerced treatment. Who wrote the mission statement and why doesn't it get into those issues?

Small: Ethan Nadelman [head of Lindesmith-DPF] wrote the mission statement, but the programmatic planks were a collaborative effort of various reform organizations. One thing we decided was that our target is those mainstream people who may not be familiar with drug policy reform and its intricacies. We tried to pick issues where we thought the public was with us or close to us. We also stayed with areas where we did not have to use a lot of time explaining our positions, because we don't have a lot of time. We tried to pick issues and themes that in some way correlated with themes the major parties have on their agenda. In Philadelphia, we want to focus on civil liberties and family values, things the GOP focuses on. We want our themes to match up well with issues like that so we can better expose the hypocrisy of the major party positions. If the Republicans want to talk family values, we will confront them with the shattered families of drug war prisoners, for example.


4. Forbes Exposes McCaffrey's Crusade Against "Cheech and Chong Medicine"

Daniel Forbes is well known to DRCNet readers as the reporter who broke the story of the drug czar's efforts to bring Hollywood and the magazine industry on board for the administration's effort to implant anti-drug messages in the mass media. In a series of pieces for salon.com, Forbes, a New York-based freelancer who writes on media and social policy, detailed the workings of an insidious payola-style arrangement between the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONCP, the drug czar's office) and elements of the entertainment media.

Forbes' pieces created a firestorm of criticism for drug czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey and his efforts to propagandize his way to victory in the war on drugs, and the critics have only grown louder as McCaffrey recently attempted to expand his media manipulation to the movies.

Now, Forbes has published a new piece, "Fighting 'Cheech and Chong' Medicine: Did the White House drug office go too far in trying to stop the spread of medical marijuana initiatives" (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/07/27/ondcp/), in which he locates the genesis of the drug czar's $2 billion public-private media manipulation campaign in efforts to derail the medical marijuana movement. Relying on court documents filed in Conant v. McCaffrey, in which California doctors sued to prevent McCaffrey from impeding their efforts to recommend or prescribe medical marijuana, Forbes details a series of meetings among ONDCP, other government officials, and prominent private sector backers of the drug war.

Those meetings, as documented in minutes made available to Forbes, clearly outlined a strategy designed to thwart the medical marijuana movement, although it remained hidden within the broader, youth-directed media campaign. And, writes Forbes, those meetings also laid the groundwork for the effort to have taxpayers ante up to supplement the corporate largesse behind those "this is your brain on drugs" ads.

DRCNet spoke with Forbes on July 28th. Here are excerpts from that conversation:

WOL: The real story seems to be buried deep in your article. You've got McCaffrey and others (government and private sector drug warriors) plotting in meetings to undercut the medical marijuana movement. You've obtained these meeting minutes that document the drug warriors' concern about the medical marijuana movement spreading.

Forbes: This is a complicated story -- you have to read it through to the end, and then you say "ah-ha." It works through the accretion of detail. The story builds brick by brick until you reach the inescapable conclusion. You see quotes from James Copple, who was running the Community Anti-drug Coalition of America at the time, saying things like, "We'll work with California and Arizona to undo and stop the spread of legalization to the other 48 states... Need to go state by state. $ to do media." And you have Mike Townsend from the Partnership for a Drug-free America saying the effort would require "$175 million. Get fdl $." And so on. When you add those things up, you arrive at a real indication that one important motivation for the media campaign was precisely to derail the medical marijuana movement.

WOL: Did these activities, these meetings, cross the line from merely sleazy to outright illegality?

Forbes: There are two possible violations of the law here. The first relates to the wording of the enabling legislation for the new taxpayer-supported side of the media campaign. That legislation, which was passed in October 1997, said ONDCP must submit its strategy for approval by both the House and the Senate and include "guidelines to ensure and certify that none of the funds will be used for partisan political purposes." The premise of my story is that a main, if not the sole motivation of the campaign was the attempt to curtail medical marijuana initiatives and derail similar elections in other states.

WOL: Does the fact that the language refers to "partisan" political purposes provide an out for the drug czar?

Forbes: I don't see any particular reason why it should solely refer to Democrats versus Republicans. If you have two sides, it's a partisan issue. The public face of the paid media campaign ignores medical marijuana -- it is not explicitly addressed in the advertising -- but it does set a climate inimical to the use of illegal drugs under any circumstances.

WOL: You said there was a second area of possible violations of the law?

Forbes: On the other illegality issue, Thomas Haines of the Partnership for Responsible Drug Information (http://www.prdi.org/), who is certainly a knowledgeable source in my book, made the point that "the use of government resources to politic on controversial issues is clearly against ethics, as well as the law stating that federal employees cannot take public positions for or against legislation under consideration." That is something some of those high-priced drug reform lawyers might want to look at.

WOL: What kind of response have you had to this story?

Forbes: I have to say it's been disappointing, and key to that was probably that the Associated Press hadn't deemed it worthy of their attention. Salon contacted a bunch of reporters, and so did I. The thing you have to understand is that the story is not a smoking pistol. I didn't obtain a smoking pistol, but a very warm gun. It's a complicated story, you have to read it through to the end, and then you say "ah-ha." But there's no "gotcha," no easy hook for a reporter to hang his hat on. But it'll be on DRCNet, and they drive the national media, right? And I'll be interviewed by Dick Cowan tonight on the Marijuana News (http://www.marijuananews.com).

WOL: You testified before the House Government Reform Committee, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources back on July 12 as the representatives reviewed McCaffrey's media campaign. What was that like?

Forbes: Although I did some additional reporting on this story after my testimony, I gave a pretty good summary of the story in open testimony before the committee. In fact, it was in the process of seeking to generate some new material for this testimony to make it worthwhile for them to listen to me that I discovered this new material. One thing I can speculate on is the fact that McCaffrey testified before me, and then it was announced that he would be available for questions afterward. While I was discussing this matter, most reporters went and talked to him instead.

WOL: What are you up to now?

Forbes: I need to approach editors on three stories I have in the pipeline. These are more analytical-type magazine pieces, not necessarily scoops. Still, I want to encourage your readers to keep me in mind if they run across any interesting tidbits. My e-mail address is [email protected]

WOL: What kind of results to your think your work has achieved?

Forbes: First, I want to say that I've been really lucky, and luck plays a role in all of this. The story was originally intended for a trade magazine, but with them it was death by a thousand cuts, and they would only have published an eviscerated version. The New Yorker was interested, but their long lead-time had me worried I would get scooped. Fortunately, Salon picked it up before that happened.

I will say that I was able to shine a light on a program of covert propaganda and I think that is something the public needs to be aware of. This sort of story is like catnip for any reporter; how could you not pursue a story like that? More specifically, the stories did change federal policy, or, as the Washington Post put it, the ONDCP had to say, "We didn't look at scripts in advance and we won't do it anymore." On the other hand, this is still ongoing, at least as of last spring. The TV networks are still receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of financial credits that they can exercise if they choose.

WOL: Anything else you want to add?

Forbes: Well, I've been smeared and the ONDCP has attempted -- unsuccessfully -- to trash my work, but that only fueled my investigative fires. There is also one key point on the movies angle. On the day the story broke, Eric Lichtblau of the Los Angeles Times interviewed ONDCP spokesman Bob Weiner before ONDCP got their stories straight. Weiner told him that studios could indeed submit finished movies for credits the same way TV studios do. I don't know if that will actually happen, but that was the official statement from the ONDCP. It hasn't received the attention it deserves.

See last week's issue for a discussion of the ONDCP media buys and other topics with famed actor/producer/activist Mike Farrell, http://www.drcnet.org/wol/146.html#farrell in our archives.


5. Drug Policy Letter Issue Focuses on Drug War Prisoners, DRCNet Launches New Prison/Incarceration Info List

DRCNet has started a special new e-mail list to support the work of the Jubilee Justice 2000 campaign and other efforts to free drug war prisoners. JUBILEE-INFO is a one way announcement list -- similar to the DRC-NATL list that carries the Week Online in that it is not a discussion group but only carries announcements that DRCNet distributes -- but which is intended for people who want to get more information and action alerts on prison/ incarceration issues, without having to wait until the end of the week to read them in the Week Online.

Please visit http://www.drcnet.org/jubilee-signup/ to subscribe, and please visit http://www.drcnet.org/justice/ to send an e-mail or fax to Congress opposing mandatory minimum sentencing and the war on drugs.

Please support the following clemency petitions:

The May/June 2000 issue of the Drug Policy Letter, with guest editor Chad Thevenot, features "Prisoners of War," a sobering discussion of the reality of America's unprecedented incarceration frenzy:
  • Mary-Elizabeth Fitzgerald discusses how the incarceration of drug offenders impacts women and their children.
  • Kelly Ali, the wife of a drug war prisoner, shares her personal narrative of a prison visit.
  • Drug war prisoner G. Patrick Callahan gives a firsthand account of life behind bars.
  • Kay Perry, coordinator of the eTc campaign, talks about the excessive charges for prisoner phone calls.
  • DPF Senior Policy Analyst Bill Piper reports on the use of ion scanning in prisons to search prison visitors.
  • David Leven reports on the excessiveness and destructiveness of the use of solitary confinement in prisons for disciplinary infractions.
  • Prisoner advocate Mary Barr comments on how drugs are smuggled into prisons and jails.
  • Tom Cahill outlines the tragic reality of jail and prison rape.
  • Last but not least, "Doing Time For Consensual Crime," by Peter McWilliams, 1949-2000, excerpted from his landmark book "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do."
Call the Drug Policy Foundation at (202) 537-5005 or e-mail [email protected] to join or request a copy, and visit http://www.dpf.org to find out more.


6. Six of One, Half a Dozen of the Other: Important Amendments to Anti-Methamphetamine Act

Opponents of H.R. 2987, the infamous "Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act," won a major victory last Tuesday, with the striking by the Judiciary Committee of provisions infringing on the right to free speech, including provisions banning distribution of information relating to the manufacture of a controlled substances, banning the advertising of drug paraphernalia, and allowing federal agencies to order Internet service providers to take down web pages they claim are illegal.

The Committee also passed an amendment allowing federal judges to divert nonviolent drug offenders charged solely with possession of an illegal drug into drug treatment or other alternative sentencing. An earlier provision allowing secret searches was also struck last week.

At the same time, however the Committee added text to turn H.R. 2987 into the "Methamphetamine and Club Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000," enacting new mandatory minimum penalties for offenses involving methamphetamine, ecstasy and other substances.

A victory has been won for free speech, but the drug war rages on. DRCNet will keep you informed on this legislation and will issue action alerts as needed. Further information on H.R. 2987 and the Judiciary Committee activity can be found online at http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/newsrelease/july262000.htm.


7. Newsbrief: Recalcitrant Feds to Appeal Oakland Marijuana Club Decision

The Justice Department announced on July 23rd that it will appeal a ruling by US District Judge Charles Breyer that allows the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative to sell medical marijuana to seriously ill patients.

The government has yet to file any briefs in its appeal to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. Neither has it announced whether it will challenge the 9th Circuit's ruling that forced Breyer to modify his original injunction barring the club from distributing medical marijuana. The government has until Friday to ask the US Supreme Court to review the 9th Circuit ruling.

On July 18th, Breyer rejected the Justice Department's request for a stay of the order. Breyer told the court he doubted the government's appeal would be successful.

The case evolved out of California's successful Proposition 215 in 1996, which allows the medical use of marijuana.

See DRCNet's coverage of this issue from last week, archived at http://www.drcnet.org/wol/146.html#calmedmj.


8. Liar of the Week

Our drug czar, retired Army General Barry McCaffrey, appearing on National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation program on Tuesday, July 25th, demonstrated that disinformation is used not only against war time opponents, but also as a debate tactic against a war's domestic critics. (Visit http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnpd01fm.cfm?PrgDate=07/25/2000&PrgID=5 for a Real Audio archive of the show.)

The topic was the US aid package to Colombia, and a good discussion took place, thanks to the efforts of host Juan Williams and many well informed callers. McCaffrey, however, got a few deceptions in that were not quite answered.

For example, responding to a caller criticizing foreign anti-drug operations that don't work, instead of spending the money dealing with addiction here at home, McCaffrey said:

"Well, you know, we shouldn't argue about facts. They're either facts or not facts. We ought to argue about conclusions. The facts of the matter are, if you look at the US counter-drug budget, it's primarily focused on enhancing prevention, education and treatment."

Unfortunately, when the drug czar speaks, what are presented as facts often turn out to be fiction. According to the 2000 National Drug Control Strategy, published by McCaffrey's own office, the FY2001 budget includes $12.9 billion on criminal justice and interdiction and source country programs, versus only $6.3 billion on treatment and prevention combined, not at all the "primary focus" of the budget that McCaffrey claimed (see http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/policy/budget00/exec_summ.html).

When Williams read a statement by Sen. Slade Gorton (R-WA) warning of a growing involvement in a civil war and attendant human rights violations, McCaffrey responded:

"Well, I think that this debate has had tremendous impact on the program we ended up with. I think Senator Leahy and Kennedy and Slade Gorton's views have influenced the way the legislation was written. There are some safeguards in here. We are vetting Colombian military and police units [for human rights violations]."

On Friday of the preceding week, however, the Associated Press reported that McCaffrey aide Brad Hittle said that while the administration wants to comply with "the spirit of the law" and work with Colombia on human rights, the top priority is "to get the aid flowing," suggesting that the administration may waive the human rights requirement and supply helicopters and funding to Colombian army units implicated or suspected of complicity in torture and murder.

Rationalizing the package, McCaffrey said, "We've got to remind ourselves, this is 52,000 dead in the US a year and these people are three hours' flight from Miami. This is not North Korea we're talking about."

The official government figures on deaths from drugs is about 20,000 per year from illegal and prescription drug abuse combined. McCaffrey has used the 52,000 figure over and over, but his office has never explained how they define a drug-related death or where the figure originated at all. Multiple attempts by drug policy reform groups to get an explanation have yielded no better reply than to attribute it to an unidentified, unpublished study.

These 20,000 are deep personal tragedies for the individuals and their friends, families and communities, but that in no way absolves the drug czar of his responsibility to be truthful with the public. Maybe it was a study similar to that overseen by former McCaffrey aide James McDonough, now the Florida drug czar, which gave a figure for club drug deaths in the state that was literally twice the actual number. According to the Orlando Sentinel, McDonough's study included:

  • a 15 year-old who died of an undiagnosed heart ailment while playing basketball;
  • a 4 year-old boy who died in the hospital after a spinal tap;
  • a 6 month-old Miami boy who died of sudden infant death syndrome;
  • an 82 year-old woman who died 8 days after being hit by a car;
  • a 58 year-old man who died upon leaving the hospital after a heart operation.
  • a 52 year-old nursing home patient who fell and hit his head; and
  • a 74 year-old cancer patient who died in the hospital from an accidental overdose of morphine.
The Sentinel report quoted survivors who were deeply offended by their family being falsely included in a drug abuse death report. (See http://www.drcnet.org/wol/138.html#floridacount for DRCNet's coverage of the McDonough debacle.)

The NPR ombudsman can be reached through http://www.npr.org/inside/ombudsman/ on the NPR web site. Thank NPR for the good quality discussion that host Juan Williams facilitated, but note how McCaffrey abused the platform they provided to subject listeners to his dishonest propaganda. Send us a copy of your comments, to [email protected].


9. Media Scan: salon.com, Washington Post

Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Military police have taken to District of Columbia bars to look for servicemen selling club drugs -- but only in gay bars:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/07/18/sldn/

Judy Mann: The Washington Post columnist wants us to "Make War on the War on Drugs":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45866-2000Jul26.html


10. ALERTS: Colombia, Mandatory Minimums, California, New York, Washington

COLOMBIA: In the wake of the late reported El Salado massacre (see story above), Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) is circulating a letter to be sent to President Clinton asking that Colombia be decertified for US military assistance -- i.e. the recently passed "Plan Colombia" -- based on continued human rights abuses. Please call your Senators -- use the Congressional Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 to be transferred to their offices -- or visit http://www.drcnet.org/stopthehelicopters/ to tell your Senators that Plan Colombia was a terrible mistake and it's time to call it off before it's too late.

MANDATORY MINIMUMS: See http://www.drcnet.org/wol/145.html (articles 1 and 2) for information on the Jubilee Justice 2000 campaign to free drug war prisoners and how you can help. Further information is included in this week's issue as well, see above. Visit http://www.drcnet.org/justice/ to tell Congress you think the mandatory minimums should go!

CALIFORNIA: Oppose "Smoke a Joint, Lose Your License" bill -- visit http://www.drcnet.org/states/california/ to write your state legislators.

NEW YORK: Repeal the Rockefeller Drug Laws! Visit http://www.drcnet.org/states/newyork/ to send a message to your legislators in Albany.

WASHINGTON STATE: Help the "Reasonable People" campaign get their drug policy reform initiative on the ballot -- visit http://www.reasonablepeople.org and involved!


11. HEA Campaign

We reprint our action call on the Higher Education Act campaign below. It's not too late to get involved, and we need your help! See http://www.drcnet.org/wol/138.html#partialvictory for the latest major campaign update and point your browser to http://www.drcnet.org/wol/141.html#usatoday for the campaign's latest major press coverage.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

  1. We urgently need to hear from students who have been affected by this law, especially students who are willing to go public.
  2. Educators are needed to endorse our sign-on letter to Congress. If you teach or are otherwise involved in education, or are in a position to talk to educators, please write to us at [email protected] to request a copy of our educators letter and accompanying activist packet -- available by snail mail or by e-mail.
  3. We need students at more campuses to take the reform resolution to their student governments. Campuses recently endorsing it include University of Michigan, Yale University, University of Maryland, University of Kansas, the Association of Big Ten Schools, Douglass College at Rutgers University and many more. Visit http://www.u-net.org for information on the student campaign and how to get involved.
  4. All US voters are asked to visit http://www.RaiseYourVoice.com to send a letter to Congress supporting H.R. 1053, a bill to repeal the HEA drug provision. Tell your friends and other like-minded people to visit this web site. Follow up your e-mail and faxes with phone calls; our system will provide you with the phone numbers to reach your US Representative and your two US Senators.
  5. Please contact us if you are involved with organizations that have mainstream credibility that might endorse a similar organizational sign-on letter -- organizations endorsing already include the NAACP, American Public Health Association, ACLU, United States Student Association, NOW, and a range of social, religious and other groups.

12. Event Calendar

July 29-August 4, San Diego, CA, "Cato University" seminar covering history, economics, law, philosophy, and foreign policy, sponsored by the Cato Institute. Registration fees start at $1,100, some student scholarships available. For information or registration, call (202) 218-4633 or visit
http://www.cato-university.org.

July 30-August 2, Philadelphia, PA, Shadow Convention 2000, visit http://www.shadowconventions.com for info.

August 3, Washington, DC, 12:30-2:30pm, "Women and the Drug War: The Fastest Growing (and Least Violent) Segment of the Prison Population," brown bag lunch and speaker series, with Mary Barr, former prisoner and lecturer on substance abuse, prisons and treatment, with video excerpts from ABC News Nightline and Court TV's "Prisoners of Love." At the Institute for Policy Studies, 733 15th St., NW, Suite 1020, call Jaime Yassef at (202) 234-9382 for information.

August 11, Washington, DC, "The Politics of Marijuana: One Arrest Every 46 Seconds," with Rob Kampia, Executive Director of the Marijuana Policy Project and the ABC News documentary "Pot of Gold," 12:30-2:30, Institute for Policy Studies Summer "brown bag" lunch and speakers series, 733 15th St. NW, Suite 1020. For more information, call Jaime Yassef (202) 234-9382.

August 11, Washington, DC, 12:30-2:30pm, "The Politics of Marijuana: One Arrest Every 46 Seconds," brown bag lunch and speaker series, with Rob Kampia of the Marijuana Policy Project and the ABC News documentary Pot of Gold. At the Institute for Policy Studies, 733 15th St., NW, Suite 1020, call Jaime Yassef at (202) 234-9382 for information.

August 10-13, San Francisco, CA, "Fourth Annual Hepatitis C Conference," sponsored by the HCV Global Foundation. For information or to register, visit http://www.hcvglobal.org or contact Krebs Convention Management Services, 657 Carolina St., San Francisco, CA 94107-2725, (415) 920-7000, fax (415) 920-7001, [email protected].

August 13, Los Angeles, CA, 2:00-5:00pm, "What's Missing, What Matters: A Town Hall Meeting," sponsored by The Nation Institute. At the Leo Baeck Temple, 1300 N. Sepulveda Blvd. Free, RSVP required, call (877) 486-9395 or e-mail [email protected] to register or for info. Co-sponsored by the Leo Baeck Temple and KPFK-FM.

August 14-16, Los Angeles, CA, "Shadow Convention 2000," visit http://www.shadowconventions.com for info.

August 17, Washington, DC, 12:30-2:30pm, "International Harm Reduction Policies: How Do Other Countries Deal With Drugs," brown bag lunch and speaker series, with Allan Clear of the Harm Reduction Coalition and excerpts from US and Australian documentaries. At the Institute for Policy Studies, 733 15th St., NW, Suite 1020, call Jaime Yassef at (202) 234-9382 for information.

September 8, New York, NY, 9:30am-5:00pm. Workshop: Boundary Issues for Service Providers, Harm Reduction Training Institute, 22 West 27th St., 5th Floor, course fee $60. Contact (212) 683-2334, ext. 32.

September 9-13, St. Louis, MO, "2000 National Conference on Correctional Health Care," sponsored by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care, at the Cervantes Convention Center. For information,contact NCCHC, (773) 880-1460 or visit http://www.ncchc.org.

September 11, New York, NY, 9:30am-1:00pm. Workshop: Drugs -- Modes of Administration, Harm Reduction Training Institute, 22 West 27th St., 5th Floor, course fee $40. Contact (212) 683-2334, ext. 32.

September 13, New York, NY, "Race-ing Justice: Race and Inequality in America Today," with Manning Marable of Columbia University's Institute for Research in African American Studies. at 122 West 27th Street, 10th floor, sponsored by New York Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, $5 requested but not required, call (212) 229-2388 for information.

September 13-15, Durham, NC, "North American Conference on Fathers Behind Bars and on the Streets," sponsored by the Family & Corrections Network and the National Practitioners Network for Fathers and Families, at the Regal University Hotel. For information, visit http://www.npnff.org or call (202) 737-6680.

September 14, New York, NY, 9:30am-5:00pm. Workshop: Harm Reduction and Case Management, Harm Reduction Training Institute, 22 West 27th St., 5th Floor, course fee $40. Contact (212) 683-2334, ext. 32.

September 16, Denver, CO, Families Against Mandatory Minimums Regional Workshop, location to be determined. Call (202) 822-6700 for information or to register.

September 19, New York, NY, 9:30am-5:00pm. Workshop: Harm Reduction in Counseling, Harm Reduction Training Institute, 22 West 27th St., 5th Floor, course fee $60. Contact (212) 683-2334, ext. 32.

September 27, New York, NY, 9:30am-5:00pm. Workshop: Clinical Supervision for Supervisors, Harm Reduction Training Institute, 22 West 27th St., 5th Floor, course fee $60. Contact (212) 683-2334, ext. 32.

September 28, Salt Lake City, UT. Second Annual Community Forum on Drug Sentencing, featuring Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson introducing former New York state chief judge Sol Wachtler. Sponsored by the Utah chapter of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, call (202) 822-6700 for further information.

October 2, New York, NY, 9:30am-5:00pm. Workshop: Harm Reduction Management, Harm Reduction Training Institute, 22 West 27th St., 5th Floor, course fee $60. Contact (212) 683-2334, ext. 32.

October 4, New York, NY, 9:30am-5:00pm. Workshop: The Life Process Program: Harm Reduction in Traditional Practice, Harm Reduction Training Institute, 22 West 27th St., 5th Floor, course fee $60. Contact (212) 683-2334, ext. 32.

October 6, New York, NY, 9:30am-1:00pm. Workshop: MICA and Harm Reduction, Harm Reduction Training Institute, 22 West 27th St., 5th Floor, course fee $40. Contact (212) 683-2334, ext. 32.

October 11-14, Hamburg, Germany, "Encouraging Health Promotion for Drug Users Within the Criminal Justice System," at the University of Hamburg. For further information and brochure, contact: The Conference Secretariat, c/o Hit Conference, +44 (0) 151 227 4423, fax +44 (0) 151 236 4829, [email protected].

October 18, Minneapolis, MN, Benefit for NORML Minnesota. First Ave. & 7th St., $5 or free for members. For information, call (612) 871-8780, e-mail [email protected] or visit http://www.normlmn.com on the web.

October 21-25, Miami, FL, "Third National Harm Reduction Conference," sponsored by the Harm Reduction Coalition, at the Wyndham Hotel Miami Biscayne Bay. For information, call (212) 213-6376 ext. 31 or e-mail [email protected].

November 1, New York, NY, 9:30am-5:00pm. Workshop: Using Creativity in Direct Service, Harm Reduction Training Institute, 22 West 27th St., 5th Floor, course fee $60. Contact (212) 683-2334, ext. 32.

November 3-4, Chicago, IL. Conference on US Policy & Human Rights in Colombia: Where do we go from here? At DePaul University, sponsored by various organizations concerned with Latin America, human rights and peace. For information contact Colombia Bulletin at (773) 489-1255 or e-mail [email protected].

November 11, Charlotte, NC, Families Against Mandatory Minimums Regional Workshop, location to be determined. Call (202) 822-6700 for information or to register.

November 16-19, San Francisco, "Committing to Conscience: Building a Unified Strategy to End the Death Penalty," largest annual gathering of Death Penalty opponents. Call Death Penalty Focus at (888) 2-ABOLISH or visit http://www.ncadp.org/ctc.html for further information.

January 13, 2001, St. Petersburg, FL, Families Against Mandatory Minimums Regional Workshop, location to be determined. Call (202) 822-6700 for information or to register.


13. EDITORIAL: Shocking Incrementalism

David Borden, Executive Director, [email protected]

It is shocking that 4 1/2 million Americans are on probation or parole. Surely the extraordinary number of people under correctional control in our country -- over 6 1/2 million, including the prisoners -- and the extraordinary cost of confining or monitoring them, will provoke a rethinking of our "tough on crime" policies and lead to a more intelligent, more targeted, more just way of dealing with offenders -- particularly nonviolent drug offenders, who number nearly a fourth of the above totals.

Then again, it was shocking last February when the incarcerated population -- prisons and jails combined -- hit two million. Now, it still gets some ink, some more people have gotten involved as a result of it, but by and large it's not the story of the day on the TV screens, radios and newspaper headlines across this country.

The biggest shocker I remember came out five years ago, when the Sentencing Project released its "Young Black Men and the Criminal Justice System: Five Years Later" report, finding that on any given day, 1 in 3 black men between the ages of 20 and 29 are under the control of the criminal justice system, either prison, jail, probation or parole.

Then again, it was probably quite shocking when they issued their first report on the subject, in 1990, "Young Black Men and the Criminal Justice System: A Growing National Problem." That report found that 1 in 4 black men in that age group were under criminal justice supervision.

I asked Marc Mauer, author of the 1990 and coauthor of the 1995 report, if they were planning to do another follow-up study, since another five years had passed. He said they were thinking about it, but "how bad do the numbers have to get" before something is done about it?

Maybe it's not how bad the numbers get, but how suddenly. The fact that the number of nonviolent drug offenders increased 11-fold between 1980 and 1997, and now number over 458,000, is surprising, when you think about it. But suppose that instead of imprisoning these people slowly, over the course of 17 years, they'd rounded them up all at once? Say they put those 400,000+ people behind bars in the space of a week, or a month -- or say a half a year, to give their lawyers time to prepare for trial -- if there even were that many lawyers back then?

I dare say that that would have shocked the nation, dominated the talk shows and the editorial pages for months, maybe even sparked mass demonstrations of the kind not seen since the heyday of the civil rights movement.

Yet the wisdom, justice, or bare sanity of such a large but unsuccessful incarceration program, is not measure by how many years is spent building it. If it would have been shocking or wrong to suddenly imprison 400,000 drug offenders all at once in 1980, why would it be any better to have such vast numbers in prison now? Would it be qualitatively different from, say, suddenly incarcerating yet another 450,000 nonviolent drug offenders during the remainder of the summer?

It is because of the drug war's slow, creeping growth that these terrible numbers, these terrible misdeeds committed in the name of protecting our children, can be tolerated by the great mass of the American public: the over-incarceration of our citizenry, the institutionalization of drug testing, the abuse of property and privacy rights, extraordinary mandatory minimum sentences that throw away the lives of countless people who should have gotten a second chance, if they should ever have been bothered at all.

Over time, with many more such reports and constant talking and advocating and agitating, Americans will one day realize the mistake they've slowly made. Then, we hope, this self-inflicted tragedy of our time will come to an end.


If you like what you see here and want to get these bulletins by e-mail, please fill out our quick signup form at http://stopthedrugwar.org/WOLSignup.shtml.

PERMISSION to reprint or redistribute any or all of the contents of Drug War Chronicle is hereby granted. We ask that any use of these materials include proper credit and, where appropriate, a link to one or more of our web sites. If your publication customarily pays for publication, DRCNet requests checks payable to the organization. If your publication does not pay for materials, you are free to use the materials gratis. In all cases, we request notification for our records, including physical copies where material has appeared in print. Contact: StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network, P.O. Box 18402, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293-8340 (voice), (202) 293-8344 (fax), e-mail [email protected]. Thank you.

Articles of a purely educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of the DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.

Out from the Shadows HEA Drug Provision Drug War Chronicle Perry Fund DRCNet en EspaŮol Speakeasy Blogs About Us Home
Why Legalization? NJ Racial Profiling Archive Subscribe Donate DRCNet em PortuguÍs Latest News Drug Library Search
special friends links: SSDP - Flex Your Rights - IAL - Drug War Facts

StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network (DRCNet)
1623 Connecticut Ave., NW, 3rd Floor, Washington DC 20009 Phone (202) 293-8340 Fax (202) 293-8344 [email protected]