Skip to main content

Latest

Blog

Concerned citizens and snitches

The article in the latest Chronicle about two people being indicted on witness tampering charges for outing a snitch is very interesting. It seems that things have become so bad that law enforcement officials can't seem to be able distinguish between snitches and concerned citizens who want to see justice done. The difference is very simple. A snitch receives a benefit in return for their testimony and therefore has an incentive to lie. The concerned citizen is motivated by morals and the only benefit they receive is knowing they did the right thing.
Blog

weed out the lying law makers

I am 45 a month before my 30th birthday I had a resection sugary because of crohns . i have dailly diareia 40 lbs under weight and i have used marijuana to help with my appitite and to relax me when my guts are pulling and turning I have had to explan to my kids why i have to associate with people that are what she called scum she is now 19 and understands but as a teenager she couldnt.
Blog

Some Good Forfeiture News

Some good news on the forfeiture front, via TalkLeft: California's Supreme Court has found that city ordinances allowing the seizure and forfeiture of vehicles that police claim were used in the commission of minor crime's (including drug possession) are not authorized by state law, overturning a law passed by the city of Stockton. We'd rather they threw the law out because it's disproportionate and corrupting of police agencies, and because taking people's cars is theft. But we'll take it.
Blog

Another Pain Doctor on the Ropes

Another pain physician, Dr. William Mangino, was convicted on trumped up charges equating his reasonable prescribing of opioid pain medications in the course of practicing medicine with illegal drug dealing. He is in jail pending sentencing, unless someone comes up with the $3,500 bail he needs to get out. Dr. Mangino is a writer and a thinker, and throughout his lengthy travail he has sent a copious amount of email to people who are interested in this problem, including myself -- not just about himself but commentary on the issue too, and on prosecutions brought against other doctors, much of it very detailed. It always makes me sad when these cases turn out badly (or when most drug cases turn out badly, for that matter), but the combination of the absence of his emails with the news itself has reinforced the reality of it for me. It probably won't be long, though, before he writes some things for us about this latest stage and someone gets it typed up and posted. Alex DeLuca has an update that includes some of the defense strategies for challenging the conviction (which include a Motion for a Directed Verdict of Not Guilty), the address for writing to Dr. Mangino in jail, and other information.
Blog

My Representative Explains Why She Voted Against Hinchey-Rohrabacher

Although I'm sitting in British Columbia this month and will be in Northern California next month, I am registered to vote in South Dakota. My representative in Congress--South Dakota only has one congressperson--is Democrat Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. Elected in 2004 in an extremely tight race, she has consistently voted against Hinchey-Rohrabacher, which would stop the feds from arresting and prosecuting medical marijuana patients and providers in states where it is legal. I emailed and telephoned her office prior to the vote urging her to vote for Hinchey. Again this year, she voted against it. Here's her reason why:
July 27, 2007 Mr. Phillip Smith XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Huron, SD 57350 Dear Phillip: Thank you for contacting me regarding the issue of medical marijuana. I appreciate hearing from you. As you may be aware, on July 25th, the House of Representatives again defeated an amendment that would have prevented federal enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act against medical marijuana users and providers in the states that have approved such use. I opposed the amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed the scope of federal authority to make and enforce laws regarding medical marijuana. The Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Department of Justice can continue to enforce the federal Controlled Substances Act against medical marijuana use in states whose laws authorize medical marijuana use. The ruling does not strike down state laws approving such use, but permits the Department of Justice to continue enforcing federal laws regarding such use. Thank you again for contacting me. I will keep your thoughts in mind as issues related to medical marijuana use are discussed in Congress. Sincerely, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Basically, Herseth Sandlin is saying that illegal (under federal law) is illegal, and she's not about to get in the way of the DEA--even if it means allowing the agency to disrupt the lives of seriously ill people (whom she never even mentions). She does not bother to say where she stands on the issue of medical marijuana, only that the feds are allowed to enforce the law. As much as I disliker her reasoning and her vote, she has something of a point: If we don't like a law, we should get rid of it, not allow it to remain on the books but with no funding to enforce it. Now, I understand the political realities that lead to efforts like Hinchey-Rohrabacher: A bill to legalize medical marijuana at the federal level will go nowhere any time in the foreseeable future, and we want to do something NOW to stop these raids. But as my Blue Dog Democrat representative and her fellow "no" voters demonstrate, Hinchey-Rohrabacher doesn't seem to be going anywhere, either. Maybe it's time to drop the Hinchey effort and retarget. Is it better to push for the currently unobtainable--a federal medical marijuana law--or try to seek interim fixes like Hinchey? I don't have a good answer. All I know is I'm getting very frustrated playing this political game. Where's my "Don't Tread On Me" flag? I'll have some more suggestions tomorrow about where we can go from here, and they don't involve begging our political leaders to do it for us. Stay tuned.
Blog

Another Letter from a Medical Marijuana Patient

This one is excerpted from a post made anonymously on our comment boards by a reader from Ohio:
I have had multiple sclerosis and a seizure disorder for 13 years now. I tried it the legal way and just got sicker and sicker, to the point of staying in bed all day. Then I tried marijuana, and it's like a wonder drug for me! I do not get high from the marijuana, it helps relax my muscles and takes the spasms away. Not to mention it's the only way I have an appetite to eat anything. How could someone tell me, no medical marijuana for you?
Good question.
Blog

I'm as angry as I've been in a long time over this one...

This one has me as angry as I've been in a long time. Tampa Bay, Florida, area resident Mark O'Hara served two years of a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence for 58 Vicodin pills. (Vicodin is an opiate pain reliever.) Sound like an extreme sentence for such a small amount, even if it was trafficking as the charges read? But there's more. O'Hara had a prescription for the pills. He's a pain patient. His doctor confirmed that he had prescribed the Vicodin to O'Hara and that he had been treating O'Hara for years. But prosecutors moved against him, and -- astonishingly -- argued to the judge that the jury shouldn't be informed that O'Hara had a prescription for the Vicodin, because there's no "prescription defense." And the judge -- doubly astonishingly -- actually bought it. Never mind the fact that the drug law O'Hara was charged with violating specifically exempts people who have a prescription. The appellate judges who threw out his conviction used words like "ridiculous" and "absurd" to describe it. Sickeningly, prosecutors have yet to say that O'Hara is off the hook and won't be taken to trial again. I think we need to organize on this one and press the system to do justice to the prosecutors and judge for the terrible atrocity they committed against Mark O'Hara. Knowingly imprisoning an innocent person is the functional equivalent of kidnapping. It should be treated as such. Prosecutors Mark Ober and Darrell Dirks should be in chains; their continued status as individuals holding power in the criminal justice system poses a threat to the safety of all Americans. The judge who enabled the kidnapping, Ronald Ficarrotta, may only be completely incompetent, but I'm not sure he should get that benefit of the doubt. Read more at Reason.
Blog

The People Support Medical Marijuana, Even If Congress Does Not

After retaining the right to arrest medical marijuana patients and caregivers, ONDCP's Tom Riley was unable to contain his glee:
Riley called the vote "a really tough day" for backers of the medical marijuana legislation.
…

"More and more people are realizing there is a con going on…" [Reuters]
This is just false on so many levels. For starters, we're gaining votes every year and we know more or less what to expect. Yesterday's result is not some sort of shocking rebuke of our position. If anything, Riley should be a bit concerned that 165 members of Congress think his whole team has its head up its collective posterior.

Similarly, Riley's assertion that "more and more people" are turning against medical marijuana is utter nonsense. We would have liked to get more votes, of course, but this is still the most support medical marijuana has seen in Congress. Public support for medical marijuana is far greater, hovering between 70% and 80%. Riley knows perfectly well that this issue is a full-blown public relations nightmare for his office, and he should be supremely grateful that idiocy about medical marijuana is better represented in Congress than the general population.
In The Trenches

The Sentencing Project: Disenfranchisement News & Updates - 7/27/07

Washington: Supreme Court Says No Payment, No Voting Rights The state Supreme Court just released its decision upholding state law that says those with felony convictions must pay all fines and court fees before voting rights are restored, according to a Seattle Times news analysis by David Postman. The lawsuit, originally filed by local lawyers and the state ACLU in 2004, challenged the constitutionality of Washington's voting regulations and argued discrimination on the basis of wealth. The majority opinion, written by Justice Mary Fairhurst reads: "We hold that Washington's disenfranchisement scheme does not violate the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution or the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. Washington's statutory disenfranchisement scheme provides for the restoration of voting rights to felons on equal terms - that is, only after individuals have satisfied all of the terms of their sentences." In 2002, the Department of Correction reported an estimated 46,500 residents who were banned from voting due to financial obligations. A Seattle Post- Intelligencer editorial stated its disappointment in the Court's 6-3 decision. The editorial board said Chief Justice Gerry Alexander's dissent ought to be required reading for legislators: "As a society, we should encourage rather than discourage felons to rehabilitate themselves," Alexander wrote. The editorial board further commented on the collateral consequences of sentencing by stating, "The Legislature would rather drop any issue that could make it look soft on crime. But the problem is that the issue matters precisely because so many poor and minority citizens have been prosecuted for drug offenses (instead of receiving treatment). The intent never was to permanently bar them from full participation in society." Wisconsin: Summit Addresses Need for Right to Vote The ACLU of Wisconsin and the local chapter of the NAACP at a summit last week said if individuals were given the right to vote upon release from prison, crime would go down, prisons would be less crowded and community participation would increase. The two groups are supporting legislation that would change the state's current law that bans individuals from voting until parole and/or probation are completed. The summit featured various experts and policymakers including State Rep. Tamara Grigsby, State Sen. Spencer Coggs and professor of law at the University of Chicago Randolph Stone. Grigsby said the bill is unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled Assembly this session, the Shepherd-Express reported. - - - - - - 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
Blog
Blog

Dems Disappointing

It's really too bad that the Freshmen Dems weren't better versed in how to vote in the Hinchey ordeal. It really makes me sick to think they could be so freakin hungry for power to sell out their compassion vote.
Chronicle
Chronicle