Skip to main content

Latest

Blog

Supporting One Lost War is Not Enough for John McCain

Note: DRCNet does not take a position on the war in Iraq. I do. Arizona Senator John McCain, one of the leading contenders for the Republican presidential nomination, has suffered mightily for his continuing support of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. That stance, I predict, will be a major contributor to his eventual failure to win the nomination. But over the weekend, McCain embraced yet another loser of a war--the war on drugs. Here's how the Associated Press reported his remarks in Iowa Sunday:
Republican presidential hopeful John McCain on Sunday said the U.S. should step up its war on drugs as part of efforts to secure the country's borders. He said that's because Americans are to blame for "creating the demand" for illegal drugs that come into the country and give too much power to drug cartels that terrorize border areas. "We are creating the demand. We are creating the demand for these drugs coming across our border, which maybe means that we should go back more trying to make some progress and in telling Americans, particularly young Americans, that the use of drugs is a terrible thing for them to do," he said. The Arizona senator spoke during an appearance at a central Iowa farm where he devoted much of the conversation with a few dozen supporters to foreign relations and immigration.
Does John McCain really believe all our war on drugs needs is a little more effort (and, of course, a little more funding)? Does he think we (read: law enforcement) haven't been trying? I don't think so. McCain is from a border state; he should know better. While McCain spoke about demand reduction, it is unclear exactly what he means. If he's talking about prevention education, that's not a bad thing. But if he's talking about reducing demand by increasing already draconian penalties for drug offenders that's an entirely different matter. McCain's campaign web site does not mention drug policy, but he has consistently favored a tough law enforcement approach to the problem. This year, he wrapped his remarks about ramping up the war on drugs in the broader context of border security. But if McCain is concerned about the impact of the cross-national black market drug trade on border security, there is a real solution: end drug prohibition, regulate the cross-border drug trade like other commodities are regulated, and cut the legs out from under the violent cartels who grow more wealthy and powerful every day under prohibition. Instead, McCain, who made his political career on one lost war in Southeast Asia and stands to end it by supporting another one in the Middle East, embraces yet another lost war in a cheap bid to gain support. Let's hope appealing for an ever-expanding, ever-deepening war on drugs is an issue whose time, like McCain's, has come and gone.
Blog

Vices Are Not Crimes

I found this on the internet and ,to me, it makes sense. The original URL: http://www.lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm The most surprising thing about the website is that it was written in 1875!
In The Trenches

The Sentencing Project: Disenfranchisement News & Updates - 8/30/07

Arizona: Solicitor General Vows to Continue Disenfranchisement Arizona's top state lawyer is seeking to repress a federal lawsuit filed by the ACLU in June challenging the state's voting ban, which denies the right to vote to citizens with two felony convictions or who have not paid financial penalties associated with a felony conviction. Solicitor General Mary O'Grady wants the state and assigned Judge Stephen McNamee to throw out the ACLU's case, according to the Arizona Daily Star. Approximately 176,000 Arizona residents are banned from voting. "That figure amounts to more than 4.3 percent of all voting-age Arizonans," said Alessandra Meetze, executive director of the Arizona chapter of the ACLU. Currently, Arizona automatically restores voting rights of individuals convicted of a single felony if they have paid all financial obligations. Australia: Landmark Decision Upholds 'Fundamental Human Right to Vote' In a landmark decision today, the Australian High Court struck down a blanket ban denying all incarcerated individuals the right to vote, according to the Australia-based Human Rights Resource Center. The Court found that legislation revoking voting rights promoted by the Howard Government last year was unlawful and unconstitutional. The Court, however, upheld the validity of the ban on those incarcerated three years or longer. The law was challenged in the High Court by Vickie Roach, an Aboriginal woman incarcerated in Melbourne. A press release from the Human Rights Law Resource Center states: "The decision of the High Court is a victory for representative democracy, accountable government, the rule of law and fundamental human rights. With Aboriginal Australians incarcerated at a rate of almost 13 times that of their fellow Australians, it is also a vindication of Aboriginal rights." - - - - - - Help The Sentencing Project continue to bring you news and updates on disenfranchisement! Make a contribution today. Contact Information: Email: [email protected], Web: http://www.sentencingproject.org
In The Trenches

DPA: A Tipping Point in Congress - Take Action

If you told me a year ago we were near a tipping point in Congress on rolling back one of the worst excesses of the war on drugs, I probably would have thought you were crazy. But the movement to eliminate the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity has grown so strong that Senators are tripping over themselves to support reform. Three different bi-partisan reform bills have already been introduced in the Senate - all by unlikely allies - and the Judiciary Committee is set to have hearings on the issue in September. Please take a minute today to fax your Senators and help build momentum against these draconian mandatory minimums.

 

Take action now.

 

Crack cocaine and powder cocaine are different forms of the same drug, and have similar effects on the brain and nervous system. Federal law, however, sets a 100 to 1 sentencing disparity between the two forms.

 

This disparity, enacted in the 1980s at the height of drug war hysteria, was based largely on the myth that crack cocaine was more dangerous than powder cocaine and that it was instantly addictive and caused violent behavior. Since then, copious amounts of scientific evidence and an analysis by the U.S. Sentencing Commission have shown that these assertions were not supported by sound data and were exaggerated or outright false.

 

Regardless of why the disparity was enacted, its impact is clear: tremendous racial disparities in the criminal justice system, wasted tax dollars, and a less safe America.

 

The solution is clear: Completely eliminate the disparity. Raise the amounts of crack cocaine it takes to trigger long sentences to equal those of powder cocaine, and reprioritize federal drug war agencies towards violent drug cartels.

DPA is launching a major grassroots campaign to boost support for reform, including holding town hall forums in key Congressional districts. We've already held one forum in
Alabama in conjunction with the ACLU; and we're planning forums in California, New York, and Texas. Additionally, we've teamed up with The Sentencing Project, the ACLU, and the Open Society Policy Center to launch a public relations campaign (you can view the campaign's really cool print ads here).

 

Three U.S. Senators have already introduced reform bills - Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Senator Joe Biden (D-DE). The Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), has pledged to have hearings on the issue in September. There is growing bi-partisan support for reform.

 

The Sessions bill (S. 1383) would reduce the crack/powder sentencing disparity to 20 to 1 by lowering penalties for crack cocaine and raising penalties for power cocaine. Since Hispanics are disproportionately prosecuted for powder cocaine offenses, the practical effect of the Sessions bill would be to reduce racial disparities for blacks, while increasing them for Hispanics. The Hatch bill (S. 1685) would reduce the disparity to 20 to 1 by lowering penalties for crack cocaine and leaving powder penalties unchanged (it is, thus, significantly better than the Sessions bill). The Biden bill (S. 1711) would completely eliminate the disparity by lowering crack penalties to equal those of powder.

Of the three bills, Senator Biden's bill is the only one to completely eliminate the disparity; and it would accomplish this without subjecting more Americans to draconian mandatory minimum sentences. His bill is the one the Senate should pass. Please take a minute to fax your Senators and urge them to co-sponsor Senator Biden's reform bill (S. 1711).

 

Take action now.

 

If you live in Delaware, please take a moment to call Senator Biden's Wilmington office and thank him for introducing a bill to eliminate the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity. The office number is 302-573-6345.

 

More Information:

 

While it takes just five grams of crack cocaine (about two sugar packets worth) to receive a five-year mandatory minimum sentence, it takes 500 grams of powder cocaine to receive the same sentence. 50 grams of crack cocaine triggers a ten-year sentence, but it takes 5,000 grams of powder cocaine - 5 kilos - to receive that much jail time.

 

Even though 66% of crack users are white, blacks make up more than 80% of federal defendants sentenced for crack cocaine offenses. No other federal law is more responsible for gross racial disparities in the federal criminal justice system.

 

And although the crack mandatory minimums were enacted to punish major traffickers, the vast majority of people subjected to them are low-level offenders. A recent report by the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that almost 70% of federal crack cocaine defendants had only low-level involvement in drug activity.