Even Anti-Meth Activists Oppose the Drug War

Tom Siebel is a multimillionaire philanthropist who funded terrifying anti-meth ads in Montana. His work has been praised by ONDCP, but now he's speaking out against the drug war.

The nation's drug policy "is a little bit crazy," Montana Meth Project founder Tom Siebel said Thursday.
...
Pointing out that the skyrocketing rate of incarceration is mostly because of drug offenses, Siebel said, "it used to be that we put people in jail who we were scared of. Now we put people in jail we're mad at."

Prison doesn't work, he said.

"They just get a better education," Siebel added. "It's like a graduate school program in drug distribution." [Great Falls Tribune]

Tom Siebel absolutely hates meth, and yet he also opposes the drug war. How can this be? Maybe his aggressive anti-meth ads are actually some sort of drug legalization conspiracy, because everyone knows that only "pro-drug groups" would ever criticize the wisdom of trying to arrest our way out of the drug problem.

Of course, Tom Siebel's work and his words demonstrate that people who care about victims of drug addiction can simultaneously oppose drug abuse while advocating commonsense policies that emphasize public health and reject mass incarceration. Having previously heaped praise upon Tom Siebel, will ONDCP now accuse him of being "pro-drug"?

Regardless, it is becoming increasingly obvious that ONDCP couldn't alienate anti-drug activists, the U.S. Congress, and the academic community any faster if they were actually doing speed themselves.

Location: 
United States
Permission to Reprint: This article is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution license.
Looking for the easiest way to join the anti-drug war movement? You've found it!

crack guideline to be retroactive (act now to help pass)

UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION
Sentencing Guidelines for United States Courts
AGENCY: United States Sentencing Commission
ACTION: Request for public comment.
SUMMARY: On May 1, 2007, the Commission submitted to the Congress amendments to the sentencing guidelines and official commentary, which become effective on November 1, 2007, unless Congress acts to the contrary. Such amendments and the reasons for amendment subsequently were published in the Federal Register. 72 FR 28558 (May 21, 2007). Two of the amendments, specifically Amendment 9 pertaining to offenses involving cocaine base ("crack") and Amendment 12 pertaining to certain criminal history rules, have the effect of lowering guideline ranges. The Commission requests comment regarding whether either amendment should be included in subsection (c) of §1B1.10 (Reduction in Term of Imprisonment as a Result of Amended Guideline Range (Policy Statement)) as amendments that may be applied retroactively to previously sentenced defendants. The Commission also requests comment regarding whether, if it amends §1B1.10(c) to include either amendment, it also should amend §1B1.10 to provide guidance to the courts on the procedure to be used when applying an amendment retroactively under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
DATE: Public comment should be received on or before October 1, 2007.
ADDRESS: Send comments to: United States Sentencing Commission, One Columbus Circle, NE, Suite 2-500, South Lobby, Washington, DC 20002-8002, Attention: Public Affairs-Retroactivity Public Comment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Courlander, Public Affairs Officer, Telephone: (202) 502-4590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3582(c)(2) of title 18, United States Code, provides that "in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o), upon motion of the defendant or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or on its own motion, the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission."
The Commission lists in §1B1.10(c) the specific guideline amendments that the court may apply retroactively under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The background commentary to §1B1.10 lists the purpose of the amendment, the magnitude of the change in the guideline range made by the amendment, and the difficulty of applying the amendment retroactively to determine an amended guideline range under §1B1.10(b) as among the factors the Commission considers in selecting the amendments included in §1B1.10(c). To the extent practicable, public comment should address each of these factors.
The text of the amendments referenced in this notice also may be accessed through the Commission’s website at www.ussc.gov.
AUTHORITY: 28 U.S.C. § 994(a), (o), (u); USSC Rules of Practice and Procedure 4.1, 4.3.
Ricardo H. Hinojosa,
Chair

Request for public comments

UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION
Sentencing Guidelines for United States Courts
AGENCY: United States Sentencing Commission
ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities. Request for public comment.
SUMMARY: As part of its statutory authority and responsibility to analyze sentencing issues, including operation of the federal sentencing guidelines, and in accordance with Rule 5.2 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Commission is seeking comment on possible priority policy issues for the amendment cycle ending May 1, 2008.
DATE: Public comment should be received on or before August 23, 2007.
ADDRESS: Send comments to: United States Sentencing Commission, One Columbus Circle, NE, Suite 2-500, South Lobby, Washington, DC 20002-8002, Attention: Public Affairs-Priorities Comment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Courlander, Public Affairs Officer, Telephone: (202) 502-4590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Sentencing Commission is an independent agency in the judicial branch of the United States Government. The Commission promulgates sentencing guidelines and policy statements for federal sentencing courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(a). The Commission also periodically reviews and revises previously promulgated guidelines pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o) and submits guideline amendments to the Congress not later than the first day of May each year pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(p).
The Commission provides this notice to identify tentative priorities for the amendment cycle ending May 1, 2008. The Commission recognizes, however, that other factors, such as the enactment of any legislation requiring Commission action, may affect the Commission’s ability to complete work on any of the tentative priorities by the statutory deadline of May 1, 2008. Accordingly, it may be necessary to continue work on some of these issues beyond the amendment cycle ending on May 1, 2008.
As so prefaced, the Commission has identified the following tentative priorities:
(1) Implementation of crime legislation enacted during the 110th Congress warranting a Commission response, including (A) the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007, Pub. L. 110–22 ; and (B) any other legislation authorizing statutory penalties or creating new offenses that requires incorporation into the guidelines.
(2) Continuation of its work with Congress and other interested parties on cocaine sentencing policy to implement the recommendations set forth in the Commission’s 2002 and 2007 reports to Congress, both entitled Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy, and to develop appropriate guideline amendments in response to any related legislation.
(3) Continuation of its work with the congressional, executive, and judicial branches of the government and other interested parties on appropriate responses to United States v. Booker and United States v. Rita, including any appropriate amendments to the guidelines or other changes to the Guidelines Manual to reflect those decisions, as well as continuation of its monitoring and analysis of post-Booker federal sentencing practices, data, case law, and other feedback, including reasons for departures and variances stated by sentencing courts.
(4) Continuation of its policy work regarding immigration offenses, specifically, offenses sentenced under §§2L1.1 (Smuggling, Transporting, or Harboring an Unlawful Alien) and 2L1.2 (Unlawfully Entering or Remaining in the United States) and implementation of any immigration legislation that may be enacted.
(5) Continuation of its policy work, in light of the Commission’s prior and ongoing research on criminal history, to develop and consider possible options that might improve the operation of Chapter Four (Criminal History).
(6) Continuation of guideline simplification efforts with consideration and possible development of options that might improve the operation of the sentencing guidelines.
(7) Resolution of a number of circuit conflicts, pursuant to the Commission’s continuing authority and responsibility, under 28 U.S.C. § 991(b)(1)(B) and Braxton v. United States, 500 U.S. 344 (1991), to resolve conflicting interpretations of the guidelines by the federal courts.
(8) Preparation and dissemination, pursuant to the Commission’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 995(a)(12)-(16), of research reports on various aspects of federal sentencing policy and practice, including information on any amendments that might be appropriate in response to those reports.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it is seeking comment on these tentative priorities and on any other issues that interested persons believe the Commission should address during the amendment cycle ending May 1, 2008. Further, with respect to items (7) and (8), the Commission requests specific comment regarding what circuit conflict issues it should address and what research topics it should consider.
To the extent practicable, public comment should include the following: (1) a statement of the issue, including scope and manner of study, particular problem areas and possible solutions, and any other matters relevant to a proposed priority; (2) citations to applicable sentencing guidelines, statutes, case law, and constitutional provisions; and (3) a direct and concise statement of why the Commission should make the issue a priority.
AUTHORITY: 28 U.S.C. § 994(a), (o); USSC Rules of Practice and Procedure 5.2.

Anti-meth / Anti-war

I am anti-meth and anti-war on drugs as well. It's time to re-think this "war" if you ask me.

WHERE IS THE REAL JUSTICE DRUG VS MURDERERS- RAPE- ASSAULTERS

It is timeto re-think this drug war.
Severe punishment for meth is not a gain for anyone.
Although BEFORE the crack/cocaine REFORM ACT ; Meth and Crakc/Cocaine RECIEVED the SAME SEVERE SENTENCE.
Even if these incarcertated individuals _REQUESTED REHABILITATION_ DURING DEFENSE_
They were obviously DENIED and NOT GIVEN into CONSIDERATION by the COURTS or by PROSECUTERS for REHABILITATION.
That would have been the BETTER PUNSHMENT.
As it would COST LESS rather than CONFINEMENT in FEDERAL PRISON.
It is time to UNDERSTAND that all people make mistakes.
"What happened to severe punishment"- for those who MURDER-RAPE-ASSAULT- THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO DESERVE HARSH PUNISHMENT!!
You have these people who do these AWFUL CRIMES yet they GET OFF WITH A FEW YEARS AND ARE RELEASED BACK INTO WORLD.
THIS IS NOT FAIR!
THIS IS NOT JUSITCE!
THE SYSTEM SUCKS AND ALL I CAN SAY IS FUCK YOU TO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO FUCKED UP THE SYSTEM!
"REFORM- YOUR MISTAKES AND GIVE THESE INDIVIDUALS BACK A LIFE FOR THEMSELVES;"

YOU DON'T THINK OF THE FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN WHO ARE SUFFERING AND HOW IT AFFECTS
THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I AM SO ANGRY AT YOU PEOPLE
DO THE RIGHT THING INSTEAD ( REFORMING ALL DRUG ACTS AND GET THEM HELP IMMEDIATLEY)
INSTEAD OF DOING THE WRONG THING (GIVING SHORTER SENTENCES AND EARLY RELEASE FOR MURDERERS-RAPIST AND ASSAULTERS) THIS IS THE REAL CRIME YOU FUCKING IDIOTS!

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <i> <blockquote> <p> <address> <pre> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <br> <b>

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Drug War Issues

Criminal JusticeAsset Forfeiture, Collateral Sanctions (College Aid, Drug Taxes, Housing, Welfare), Court Rulings, Drug Courts, Due Process, Felony Disenfranchisement, Incarceration, Policing (2011 Drug War Killings, 2012 Drug War Killings, 2013 Drug War Killings, 2014 Drug War Killings, 2015 Drug War Killings, 2016 Drug War Killings, 2017 Drug War Killings, Arrests, Eradication, Informants, Interdiction, Lowest Priority Policies, Police Corruption, Police Raids, Profiling, Search and Seizure, SWAT/Paramilitarization, Task Forces, Undercover Work), Probation or Parole, Prosecution, Reentry/Rehabilitation, Sentencing (Alternatives to Incarceration, Clemency and Pardon, Crack/Powder Cocaine Disparity, Death Penalty, Decriminalization, Defelonization, Drug Free Zones, Mandatory Minimums, Rockefeller Drug Laws, Sentencing Guidelines)CultureArt, Celebrities, Counter-Culture, Music, Poetry/Literature, Television, TheaterDrug UseParaphernalia, Vaping, ViolenceIntersecting IssuesCollateral Sanctions (College Aid, Drug Taxes, Housing, Welfare), Violence, Border, Budgets/Taxes/Economics, Business, Civil Rights, Driving, Economics, Education (College Aid), Employment, Environment, Families, Free Speech, Gun Policy, Human Rights, Immigration, Militarization, Money Laundering, Pregnancy, Privacy (Search and Seizure, Drug Testing), Race, Religion, Science, Sports, Women's IssuesMarijuana PolicyGateway Theory, Hemp, Marijuana -- Personal Use, Marijuana Industry, Medical MarijuanaMedicineMedical Marijuana, Science of Drugs, Under-treatment of PainPublic HealthAddiction, Addiction Treatment (Science of Drugs), Drug Education, Drug Prevention, Drug-Related AIDS/HIV or Hepatitis C, Harm Reduction (Methadone & Other Opiate Maintenance, Needle Exchange, Overdose Prevention, Pill Testing, Safer Injection Sites)Source and Transit CountriesAndean Drug War, Coca, Hashish, Mexican Drug War, Opium ProductionSpecific DrugsAlcohol, Ayahuasca, Cocaine (Crack Cocaine), Ecstasy, Heroin, Ibogaine, ketamine, Khat, Kratom, Marijuana (Gateway Theory, Marijuana -- Personal Use, Medical Marijuana, Hashish), Methamphetamine, New Synthetic Drugs (Synthetic Cannabinoids, Synthetic Stimulants), Nicotine, Prescription Opiates (Fentanyl, Oxycontin), Psilocybin / Magic Mushrooms, Psychedelics (LSD, Mescaline, Peyote, Salvia Divinorum)YouthGrade School, Post-Secondary School, Raves, Secondary School