Skip to main content

Latest

Chronicle
Chronicle
Chronicle

Latin America: Mexico Drug War Update

The body count in Mexico's prohibition related violence this week topped 19,000, as President Felipe Calderon's war on the so-called cartels continues to reap high levels of bloodshed.
Chronicle
Chronicle
Chronicle
Chronicle
Blog

Fighting for Legalization Isn't Enough. You Need to Know Your Rights.

As the debate over marijuana legalization rages on and U.S. drug policy draws more public scrutiny than ever before, the arrests and injustices just keep adding up. We can debate the law until we're blue in the face, and we should, but it's equally essential that every American understand the terms of engagement in a battle that catches peaceful people in its crossfire each and every day.

It is because so few of us truly understand our basic rights that police are able to trample them so routinely. But it's also the haunting thought of that knock at the door, and the uncertainty of how to respond, that prevents so many among us from ever coming out of the closet and lending their voices to the debate. Fear and intimidation are the vital instruments without which the war on drugs would have been banished to the bowels of history long ago.

If you haven't yet seen the new Flex Your Rights video 10 Rules for Dealing with Police, please take this opportunity to do so, and please share it with the people you care about. It won't end the drug war, but it might help you get a better night's sleep. And you deserve that.

Blog
Blog

Confusing Legalization With Prohibition

No matter how hard you struggle to explain the basics of the black market drug economy to supporters of the drug war, they stare blankly back at you. Yet, the instant you propose legalization, they will predict the creation of a massive criminal empire, as though it never existed before:

For starters, California will become a legitimate shipping and marketing point for the deadly weed. Such legalization will spur many entrepreneurs in California to invest in marijuana production and distribution because of the big money to be generated. An oversupply of marijuana will force some of these legalized pot cartels to set their sights on other states as their customers, even though it is illegal in those states, as in Alabama.

Secondly, the crimes associated with marijuana use and efforts to dominate the market will flood not only California, but the surrounding states. [Montgomery Advertiser]

If all of this sounds familiar, that's because it happened already. But it happened under prohibition, not legalization. It's as if our opponents have literally stolen all of our talking points and are now incoherently parading them around in a strange cynical attempt to confuse everyone. I guess that's not the worst strategy to deploy in a debate you've been losing for more than a decade.
In The Trenches

Disenfranchisement News: Registered to Vote Before or After Conviction?

Disenfranchisement News

Sentencing Project

In this issue

·         Tennessee: Registered to Vote Before or After Conviction? » GO

·         National: College Press Takes Stance on Disenfranchisement » GO

·         Virginia: Is the Governor's Restoration Power a Conflict of Interest? » GO

 

Contact Us

Send an email to
The Sentencing Project.

The Sentencing Project
514 Tenth Street, NW
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004
202.628.0871

 

April 8, 2010

Disenfranchisement News

TENNESSEE

Registered to Vote Before or After Conviction?

An investigation has been opened by a District Attorney to learn whether eight individuals registered to vote after they were convicted, according to the Marshall County Tribune. If residents have not had their citizenship rights restored by a chancellor or a circuit court judge, they are banned from voting, according to State Elections Coordinator Mark Goins.

The Department of State's Office of the Elections Coordinator asked the Department of Corrections to compare its list of prisoners with the list of registered voters. The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation is investigating whether or not any of the eight people, in fact, registered after a conviction or prior to being sentenced.

"If one of those people was registered to vote before their conviction, then they haven't violated the law because the conviction came after the registration," Goins said.

NATIONAL

College Press Takes Stance on Disenfranchisement

Howard University's student publication, The Hilltop, published an editorial in support of voting rights for individuals who have felony offenses on their records. The Hilltop's position is that the offenses individuals are charged with "shouldn't have anything to do with the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution."

The editorial continues: "They are people and, more importantly in this case, American citizens, ergo their fundamental right to vote should be immediately restored upon the completion of their sentences."

VIRGINIA

Is the Governor's Restoration Power a Conflict of Interest?

In the News & Messenger, columnist Davon Gray poses several questions to readers regarding whether or not individuals should regain voting rights after they have completed their sentence. Though Gray doesn't support automatic restoration to all individuals, he does state that a different system than the one presently used in Virginia should be in place for rights restoration. "Personally I like the idea of the right to vote being restored on a case by case basis. What I don't like is the idea of a governor having sole ability to restore that right," he writes.

Gray goes on to say that rights restoration by a governor could pose a conflict of interest.  He writes that some cases should not warrant loss of voting rights upon completion of sentence.

"If someone steals a dog, should they face a lifetime ban on voting? … I would hate to see someone who has done their punishment for this trying to convince a governor they should have the right to vote back," he writes. "In this hypersensitive 24-hour news cycle we live in, watch groups are just waiting to exploit a politician for being soft on crime if he or she would give a convicted dog thief back the right to vote. The headlines wouldn't say 'Governor Restores Right to Vote for Dog Thief.'  It would be 'Governor Sides with Felon."

Back to top ^

The Sentencing Project is a national organization working for a fair and effective criminal justice system by promoting reforms in sentencing law and practice, and alternatives to incarceration.

 

Blog
Blog

Drug Cartels Are Terrified of Marijuana Legalization, Part 2

Steve Chapman had an awesome piece last week that sent drug war nutjob Cliff Kincaid over the edge yet again:

"Mexico is the biggest supplier of cannabis to the United States," he writes. "Control of that market is one of the things that Mexican drug cartels are willing to kill for. Legalizing weed in this country would be their worst nightmare. Why? Because it would offer Americans a legitimate supply of the stuff."

What he fails to realize is the fact that the Mexican drug cartels have already infiltrated the U.S. and are growing the "stuff" in the United States. Hence, legalization could have the effect of making these criminals into "legitimate" businessmen.

Ed Brayton has a good response:

The obvious answer is: so what? Yes, it could make those currently peddling an illegal product into a legitimate company selling a legal product, just as ending prohibition allowed some bootlegging operations to become legit businesses (though more likely the distribution would be done by already existing companies, most likely tobacco companies). But the question is, why is this a bad thing?

Has Kincaid not noticed that having legitimate businesses competing on the basis of quality, service and advertising is a hell of a lot better than having rival gangs compete for territory through mass violence?

Right on, but I would take things a step further though and refuse to concede that cartel bosses would even made able to make that transition. Yes, the marijuana industry would go legit, but that doesn't mean we have to patronize or give business permits to anyone on an international most-wanted list. The genius of legalization is that we get to decide who our marijuana comes from.
Blog

Refusing a Search Doesn't Give Police the Right to Detain You

Here's an Arizona case that illustrates why you should never give police consent to search your vehicle:


The state appellate court has overturned the cocaine-transportation conviction of a Canadian man passing through Flagstaff after ruling the search of his vehicle was illegal.

The reason: The Arizona Department of Public Safety officer who stopped Alvin J. Sweeney, 53, didn't have reasonable suspicion to search his vehicle. [AZDailySun.com]

The suspect refused the search, and although the officer detained him and ultimately searched the car anyway, the whole thing was ultimately thrown out in court. If he'd agreed to the search, the evidence would have been admissible and he'd still be in jail.

Something to keep in mind, even if you've never broken a law in your life. Unless you're the only person who's ever set foot in your car or house, how can you really be sure there's nothing that could get you in trouble?
In The Trenches

Press Release: Third Colorado City Legalizes Marijuana

For Immediate Release April 7, 2010 Contact Mason Tvert, SAFER executive director, 720-255-4340 Nederland Becomes Third City in Colorado to Remove All Penalties for Adult Marijuana Possession Mayor who opposed measure ousted -- Boulder District Attorney says he's "paying attention to public sentiment" Statement below from SAFER Executive Director Mason Tvert NEDERLAND -- On Tuesday, April 6, a majority of voters in Nederland approved a ballot measure that removed all local penalties for private adult marijuana possession, making the mountain town the third Colorado locality to "legalize" marijuana in the past five years. Denver voters adopted a citizen-initiative to do so in November 2005, and voters in Breckenridge approved a similar measure in November 2009. More than 54 percent of Nederland voters supported the measure in what Town Clerk Christi Icenogle said was a high turn-out election. Voters also ousted incumbent Mayor Martin Cheshes, who had vocally opposed the measure and referred to it as "foolish," replacing him with Trustee Sumaya Abu-Haidar. Prior to the announcement of the vote, the Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett told The Daily Camera: "I'll pay attention if it passes. Marijuana enforcement is a sensitive issue, and it's important to gauge public sentiment.” "It's time for Colorado's elected officials to recognize that many -- and in some cases most -- of their constituents support an end to Marijuana Prohibition," said SAFER Executive Mason Tvert. "Those who fail to do so are the 'foolish' ones, and in some areas it could result in them losing votes. "Nederland is not the first Colorado locality to express its opinion that marijuana should be legal for adults, and it certainly won't be the last," Tvert said. "More and more Coloradans are beginning to recognize the fact that marijuana is far safer than alcohol for the user and for society, and it's only a matter of time before they decide to stand up against irrational laws that drive people to drink by prohibiting them from making the safer choice." Durango, which voted largely in support of the statewide initiative to legalize marijuana in 2006, will likely to vote on a similar local marijuana legalization initiative this November. A recent poll of likely Colorado voters found that 50 percent now support making marijuana legal for adults and regulating it like alcohol. In Denver, ground zero of the statewide movement to reform marijuana laws, polls find # # #
In The Trenches

Send a marijuana policy e-card today!

Marijuana Policy Project

Marijuana Policy Project Alert

April 7, 2010

Drop Shadow

MPP e-cards are here – send one today!

Send a card ... give the gift of marijuana policy reform!

Whether it's "happy birthday," "happy mother's day," or just "hello" – say it with an MPP e-card. Instead of the same old generic sentiments, now you can introduce a meaningful twist in all your card-sending.

For just a $10 donation, you can let family, friends, and loved ones know that you care about them and at the same time support ending marijuana prohibition.

Environmentally friendly, MPP e-cards let you express yourself in a greener fashion without paper, stamps, or postal delays ... and all the proceeds go directly towards MPP's work to change state and federal marijuana laws.

Visit the MPP e-card page to pick your design and message. And check back, since we'll be adding new ones in the future.

Send an MPP e-card today and spread the word to loved ones that marijuana policy reform matters!

 

Raised in '10:
$688,402
Goal in '10:
$2,700,000

MPP depends on the support of you and our other allies to fund our work.  Together we
will change marijuana laws.

Contributions to MPP are not tax-deductible. To make a tax-deductible contribution, click here.

Popular Links:

·         MPP's home page

·         MPP blog

·         MPP TV

·         FAQ

·         State-by-state medical marijuana laws

·         MPP news releases

·         2010 strategic plan

·         Download hand-outs

·         About the Marijuana Policy Project

·         MedicalMarijuanaProCon.org

·         Why donate?

 

 

 

Our mailing address is: 

MPP
236 Massachusetts Ave. NE, #400
Washington, DC 20002


We are required by federal law to tell you that any donations you make to MPP may be used for political purposes, such as supporting or opposing candidates for federal office.

 

Borderless Footer