Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Pass a Joint, Go to Prison
For those hoping that Congress might wait and see if the Supreme Court's January ruling regarding federal sentencing guidelines actually unleashes the chaos predicted by critics of soft-on-crime judges, here is cause for concern: Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has rewritten his Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act (known by the catchy acronym DAMV:SADTCPA), which he introduced before the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Booker. Apparently Sensenbrenner decided DAMV:SADTCPA wasn't draconian enough. The bill, which has been passed by a subcommittee and will soon be considered by the full House Judiciary Committee, retains the 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for anyone over 21 who supplies any quantity of any drug to someone under 18, with a life sentence for a second such offense. In addition, according to an analysis by Families Against Mandatory Minimums, the bill would:
- make the sentencing guidelines mandatory again, forbidding downward departures in almost all cases;
- virtually eliminate the "safety valve" provision for low-level, nonviolent drug offenders;
- create a three-year mandatory minimum for parents who see or hear about drug dealing targeting or near their children and fail to report it;
- create a 10-year mandatory minimum for parents who sell drugs when their children are nearby; and
- increase the mandatory minimum for selling drugs in "drug-free zones," which in practice cover almost anywhere within many cities, to five years.
In a press release that's not online yet, the Marijuana Policy Project cites another attention-grabbing provision of the bill: "Anyone convicted in federal court of the crime of 'enticing' someone 'who has previously been enrolled in a drug treatment program' to 'possess' marijuana will receive a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. That's right: Passing a joint to someone who used to be in drug treatment will land you in federal prison for a minimum of five years."
|4.15.05 @ 12:06PM|#
Yet another stepping stone on the long, slow stroll to
totalitarianism.
Awwwwww, fuck! Why don't these twats quit wasting time and just
skip to the logical conclusion of the war on drugs: life in prison
for anyone who so much as thinks about drugs.
|4.15.05 @ 12:09PM|#
Isn't Madison in Wisconsin? How the hell can somebody like Sensenbrenner exist in a state that contains Madison? Is the rest of the goddamn state like Topeka, KS or something?
|4.15.05 @ 12:13PM|#
Lovely! It's bad enough that the booze store cards *everyone* who buys alcohol (even if they're obviously old enough) -- now dealers are going to have to do the same?
|4.15.05 @ 12:23PM|#
How the hell can somebody like Sensenbrenner exist in a
state that contains Madison?
In many areas of Wisconsin, Madison is looked down upon as a bunch
of hippies and rowdy college kids.
Senselessnbrenner represents the really uptight
north shore suburbs of Milwaukee. Or at least he did before the
last round of gerrymandering. Maybe it's changed now.
|4.15.05 @ 12:37PM|#
I'm seriously wondering how long it will be before ALL employers are required by law to drug-test ALL employees, the same way employers are now required to check Social Security numbers.
|4.15.05 @ 12:37PM|#
This shit makes me sick to my stomach. How the fuck can these
people sleep at night? Are they human?
Oh, yeah. I forgot. "Drugs are bad. Think of the children."
If they really cared about the children they would adopt policies
that wouldn't ruin countless innocent lives.
|4.15.05 @ 12:38PM|#
"I'm seriously wondering how long it will be before ALL
employers are required by law to drug-test ALL employees, the same
way employers are now required to check Social Security
numbers."
Do you think that would go over relatively well, Jennifer? I'd like
to think that it wouldn't, but then I see shit like this bill.
|4.15.05 @ 12:39PM|#
I wonder if they're actually crazy enough to think that these measures will really work.
|4.15.05 @ 12:41PM|#
Jennifer-
Mandatory testing for all employers would seriously hurt small
businesses.
I therefore predict that it will come about fairly soon. With
exemptions for management, of course.
|4.15.05 @ 12:42PM|#
Oh they'll work alright. They'll work to get Nonsensenbrenner re-elected. They will achieve their (non-ostensible) purpose.
|4.15.05 @ 12:45PM|#
Andy-
There are, of course, plenty of reasonable arguments to make as to
why the government would NEVER require something so asinine. But
then, if we went back in time a few decades you could use those
same arguments to prove that the government would NEVER do anything
as stupid as declare a "War on Drugs."
|4.15.05 @ 12:49PM|#
It's like the '70s all over again.
Don't mess with Marijuana!
Possession: 20 years
Sale: Life!
|4.15.05 @ 12:54PM|#
so, y'all are seriously pissed off about the rights of 25 year olds that provide drugs to minors? seriously?
|4.15.05 @ 12:58PM|#
the crime of 'enticing' someone
Hmmm, I wonder if the DEA is subject to this rule with their
magazine
.
If I was under the impression that all drug dealers looked like
those girls, I could be 'enticed' to snort a line of poop just to
see where it came from.
|4.15.05 @ 12:58PM|#
ABC-
You think a seventeen-year-old or a former drug-rehab inmate
smoking a joint is such a catastrophe that a life sentence is an
acceptable response? Seriously?
|4.15.05 @ 12:59PM|#
Jennifer, thoreau, et.al.
.. the day is coming, probably within the next few years, when
anyone who applies for a drivers license will be required to take a
mandantory drug test .. I'm just amazed that one of these loonies
hasn't thought of it yet ..
.. for the children, of course ..
|4.15.05 @ 1:00PM|#
Also, not that I'm a defender of prohibition, but to argue that
it "doesn't work" is really just a display of wanton ignorance or
self-deception. Obviously, it "works" in the sense that making the
price of drugs more dear will reduce consumption. It's basic
economics.
If you don't believe me, ask yourself - what are the drugs which
are most commonly used and which have the worst impacts on society?
Why, suprise, suprise - it's the legal drugs. Not because they are
inherently more destructive or attractive, but because it is
cheaper, easier, and more legal to obtain them.
|4.15.05 @ 1:02PM|#
Jennifer - no, I don't think it's an appropriate sentence. I
also don't think it's the end of the world y'all are making it out
to be...
You guys are such a bunch of pessimists.
|4.15.05 @ 1:11PM|#
Isn't Madison in Wisconsin?
Wasn't Joe McCarthy from WI?
Oh wait, I probably violated some kind of Godwin's law equivalent
here. Sorry :)
|4.15.05 @ 1:12PM|#
No, abc, it's not the end of the world, merely someone's life, for all intents and purposes. No big deal at all.
|4.15.05 @ 1:13PM|#
Obviously, it "works" in the sense that making the price of
drugs more dear will reduce consumption. It's basic
economics.
You're obviously showing your ignorance of basic economics.
|4.15.05 @ 1:15PM|#
You guys are such a bunch of pessimists.
Yea, right.
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In
both instances there is a twilight when everything remains
seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be
most aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become
unwitting victims of the darkness.
- William O. Douglas, judge (1898-1980)"
Someone light a match.
|4.15.05 @ 1:19PM|#
Get behind me, abc troll.
"I wonder if they're actually crazy enough to think that these
measures will really work."
T-
C'mon. Do you actually believe they're thinking that far ahead?
Consequences, schmonsequences.. they're doing something NOW!
I'm reading more and more comments here rumbling about bloody
revolution. If these fascist fuckheads push any further then I may
join them.
MP|4.15.05 @ 1:19PM|#
abc, why don't you show us all evidence of the drug war working, instead of pulling shit out of your ass.
|4.15.05 @ 1:21PM|#
"Jennifer - no, I don't think it's an appropriate sentence. I
also don't think it's the end of the world y'all are making it out
to be..."
To paraphrase MLK Jr, the tolerance of injustice anywhere is a
threat to justice everywhere.
|4.15.05 @ 1:29PM|#
abc,
We�re not pessimists, we�re realists. Under these laws, when I
visited home from college my junior year and my brother and I hung
out and smoked (which he did without me, but just enjoying a mutual
interest), if I passed the pipe I would be in bad shape. Worse
shape than if I did something benign like jumping out of the bushes
and sexually assaulting a jogger.
|4.15.05 @ 1:52PM|#
Pessimist? HAHA - no, try habitual law-breaker. For the fun of it. Or just the bragging rights of having broken every drug law in existence at least once. Or maybe both. Hell - somebody pass me the bowl.
|4.15.05 @ 1:55PM|#
All other things being equal, prohibition most certainly will
drive down drug use relative to what it would be in the absence of
prohibition. Simple supply and demand.
The problem is that we can't really make a comparison here under
the assumption "All other things being equal..." Driving drugs into
the black market has also affected the manner in which drugs are
produced and marketed. Instead of getting cocaine as a mild
stimulant in Coca Cola, the black market is more likely to sell it
in the purest, most addictive form so that they can maximize the
cash they get before getting caught (and maximize the cash on hand
to buy their way out once they're caught).
And when drug use is driven underground, the most reckless and
excessive uses will predominate rather than "social use" in which
people ingest mild doses (like with alcohol, where most drinkers
avoid getting completely trashed).
So, while it's likely that the number of consumers may increase
with legalization, the number of abusers will more
likely decrease. And even if the number of abusers increases, given
how inelastic the demand is, driving down the price will probably
drive down the total amount of money spent on drugs.
It's simple, really: When demand is inelastic (as it is when drugs
are consumed in addictive quantities) driving up the price drives
down the quantity demanded somewhat, but not enough to
reduce the total amount spent. So prohibition is actually
increasing the amount of money spent on
drugs.
I want nothing more than to help the addicts by shutting down the
black market. Get this problem out into the open, get the addicts
far away from the gangsters, and end the violence.
|4.15.05 @ 2:02PM|#
Oh, I don't doubt this bill will pass 350-60 in the House and 80-15 in the Senate. We on this board are such a tiny minority that all our protestations might as well be mouse farts. Man, I hate it when gaius marius is right.
|4.15.05 @ 2:09PM|#
abc - why do you want to piss away your tax money paying for
potheads to live in prison for life, where many newsreports state
they can easily get drugs?
I'd rather a drug user spent their money on munchies after getting
high than spend my money on their food!
|4.15.05 @ 2:15PM|#
"Man, I hate it when gaius marius is right."
Where the hell has he been, anyway? Anyone else notice his
absence?
|4.15.05 @ 2:35PM|#
"so, y'all are seriously pissed off about the rights of 25 year
olds that provide drugs to minors? seriously?"
You make it seem like this is about just some 25 year old unwashed
homeless guy hanging around the elementary school playground saying
"c'mere little boy, want some crack." That's not the only kind of
case this legislation would address, and probably not even the
majority. I imagine most cases would be more like mine:
When I was 17 and a senior in highschool, my peer group ranged from
17 to 22--Other seniors, friends from highschool who had graduated
the previous year, and their friends who had graduated before that.
This being the case, even in retrospect I can't bring myself to
find this age distribution to be all that creepy, although at 30 I
maintain some cognitive dissonance about the idea of a 22 year old
man hanging out with a 17 year old girl.
Anyway, I was 17 the first time I smoked pot, and hardly
particularly more "impressionable" than the 22 year old who
provided it. 13 years later he is a college graduate and a
productive, tax-paying member of society.
Under this legislation, my friend spends a mandatory minimum of 10
years in prison. Meanwhile, my mother, who was certainly pissed
when she found out I had a joint, spends 3 years in prison because
she just grounded me instead of calling the cops on my
friend.
Who is better off because of this? My mom spends 3 years in jail?
My friend spends 10 years in jail instead of finishing college and
starting a career? Me? I have a job I love that pays well and a
wonderful husband. Good luck convincing me that I was harmed by a
little pot smoking as a teenager. My husband smoked pot with his
sister when he was 16 and she was 21. You bet I'm concerned with
the rights of people who provide drugs to minors.
|4.15.05 @ 2:56PM|#
tsiroth,
I'm glad your life, and the lives of the people you have described,
have worked out well. My concern is that people like
Senslessbrenner would look at the people you've described as, in
the words of Eric Cartman, "a bunch of Goddamned hippies," who
should be spending time in prison, away from the rest of
"us proper, law-abiding folks." I also fear that people like
Senslessbrenner represent the majority in this country, and that
they are just too dangerous.
Your points are valid, and I completely agree with you. I also fear
for the rights of people who just happen to piss off the wrong
bureaucrat or cop.
Perhaps if enough legislators and cops were framed and had to
defend themselves against serious prison time, things would change.
But in the meantime, this witchhunt is going to destroy plenty of
lives. This sucks.
Decnavda|4.15.05 @ 8:50PM|#
create a three-year mandatory minimum for parents who see or
hear about drug dealing targeting or near their children and fail
to report it
Okay, so I take my four-year-old to the park, let him run on the
playground while I read the paper. I look up, and see a local gang
member sell pot to someone while leaning on the poles holding up
swings my son is swinging on.
My choices are now:
1) Do not report this to the cops, and risk a mandatory 3 year
minimum sentence in Federal prision, or;
2) Report this to the cops, and risk a gang member blowing me full
of holes.
I suppose we should be lucky that they only limit this delima to
people who are responsible for the care of children...
|4.16.05 @ 8:43AM|#
You hit it, decnavda. The absolute worst part of this already
unbelievably draconian bill is the part that makes it a crime
not to rat somebody out!
If this passes, I swear to Christ that I'm leaving what has become
this cesspool of a country.
|4.16.05 @ 9:46AM|#
One of the first things you learn in a logic class is that you
can't prove a negative, and yet this bill, if passed, would require
people to do just that in order to keep their freedom--how, for
instance, could Decnavda keep his/her freedom by "proving" that he
did NOT see the drug dealer leaning against the swings?
For a party that claims to honor "family values" the Republicans
sure seem to be doing their best to destroy American families.
Matthew Bryan|4.16.05 @ 3:56PM|#
The drug warriors are running scared. In response to the increasing availability of medical pot, and the resulting "demarginalization" of the drug, the Antis are resorting to the increasingly hysterical. Witness John Walter's recent comments--more fear-mongering and paranoiac than usual, even for him. This senseless piece of garbage bill is clearly a similar response.
|4.17.05 @ 12:55AM|#
I see a serious legal problem coming from this bill. No, not the usual ones already commented on. Think what will now happen if you are an alleged co-conspirator. You will be asked to testify against your alleged co-conspirator, and if you don't you'll be charged with the crime of "not reporting" in addition to the base crime. A terribly coercive tool in the hands of an unscrupulous prosecutor. It will also hugely increase conviction rates. I'd bet many juries won't convict on the base charge but will convict on the "didn't report" charge, reasoning that even if there isn't enough evidence supporting the base charge, the defendant is probably guilty of something (where there's smoke...) and a 3-year term is a suitable compromise.
|4.17.05 @ 3:14AM|#
It's almost as if these freaks are trying to radicalize me. First, they let me do my own taxes the other night (which ended up being 13 pages long), now this! I think I hate Al Qaeda most because they missed the Capitol building!
Wylde Bill|4.18.05 @ 4:42AM|#
Yeah, pass a joint to a guy who just got out of a forced rehab
program- not because he felt that his life was not being lived to
the fullest, but because some half-wit drug-warrior made him piss
in a cup awhile back so he could continue to drive to his
job.
What a morally reprehensable thing to do!
What horrors that some folk (like most folk, up until the good ole
"Ladies Christian Temperence Union") give their older kids hot
toddies, wine or beer at dinner, or smoke a doobie with them!
Aieeeeee!
I simply loathe neo-victorians.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245