Wednesday, June 23, 2004

Senselessbrenner proposes horrible new sentencing bill Via TalkLeft comes word of another horrible bill with an exploitive and deceptive name: Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2004 sponsored by House Judiciary Chair Jim Sensenbrenner (R-5th district, WI). So far he's the sole sponsor, but he has a lot of power, and it's going to take some effort in an election year to prevent passage. To read the bill, go to Thomas and type in HR4547. The bill makes adjustments to the Controlled Substances Act. Here are some of the new penalties for distribution of any controlled substance (including marijuana), or attempting or conspiring to distribute (note that actual sale is not required). Distribution by a person older than 18 to a person under 21 is 5 year mandatory for first offense. (would probably include two college students sharing a joint) Distribution by a person older than 18 to a person under 21 is 10 years for subsequent offense. Distribution by a person older than 21 to a person under 18 is 10 year mandatory for first offense. Distribution by a person older than 21 to a person under 18 is life in prison for subsequent offense. No opportunity would be given for probation or suspended sentences. Judicial involvement would be limited. Additionally, the bill would increase "proximity penalties." Once you add all the things together, you get: Distributing, manufacturing, or possession with intent to distribute within one thousand feet of a public or private elementary, vocational, or secondary school or a public or private college, junior college, or university, or a playground, or a public or private youth center, public swimming pool, or video arcade facility, or public library, or public or private daycare facility would be subject to 5 years minimum for the first offense, 10 years minimum for the second offense. Tell your Representative to oppose mandatory sentencing. And if you live in the 5th District of Wisconsin, you might want to check out Bryan Kennedy, who is opposing Frank James Sensenbrenner, Jr. in November. You can also buy a T-Shirt at my shop: 11:59:59 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Government: Some drugs are OK Jeanne Lenzer with the British Medical Journal (with follow-ups by World Net Daily) has a strong report: Bush plans to screen whole US population for mental illness. The sweeping mental health initiative that President Bush will unveil in July is part of the government's New Freedom Initiative, which has some very laudable goals regarding integrating mentally ill patients into the community. However, the plan includes a major effort to find mental illnesses that go undiagnosed by using the schools to screen the 52 million students and the 6 million adults who work there. The effort will link the screening with "state of the art treatments" using "specific medications for specific conditions" and specifically using the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP) as a model. But the Texas project, which promotes the use of newer, more expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs, sparked off controversy when Allen Jones, an employee of the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General, revealed that key officials with influence over the medication plan in his state received money and perks from drug companies with a stake in the medication algorithm (15 May, p1153). He was sacked this week for speaking to the BMJ and the New York Times. The Texas project started in 1995 as an alliance of individuals from the pharmaceutical industry, the University of Texas, and the mental health and corrections systems of Texas. The project was funded by a Robert Wood Johnson grant--and by several drug companies. Mr Jones told the BMJ that the same "political/pharmaceutical alliance" that generated the Texas project was behind the recommendations of the New Freedom Commission, which, according to his whistleblower report, were "poised to consolidate the TMAP effort into a comprehensive national policy to treat mental illness with expensive, patented medications of questionable benefit and deadly side effects, and to force private insurers to pick up more of the tab" (http://psychrights.org/Drugs/AllenJonesTMAPJanuary20.pdf). One of the drugs that would be pushed would be Olanzapine, Eli Lilly's top-selling drug, which grossed over $4 billion last year. Eli Lilly, manufacturer of olanzapine, has multiple ties to the Bush administration. George Bush Sr was a member of Lilly's board of directors and Bush Jr appointed Lilly's chief executive officer, Sidney Taurel, to a seat on the Homeland Security Council. Lilly made $1.6m in political contributions in 2000--82% of which went to Bush and the Republican Party. Jones points out that the companies that helped to start up the Texas project have been, and still are, big contributors to the election funds of George W Bush. In addition, some members of the New Freedom Commission have served on advisory boards for these same companies, while others have direct ties to the Texas Medication Algorithm Project. Bush was the governor of Texas during the development of the Texas project, and, during his 2000 presidential campaign, he boasted of his support for the project and the fact that the legislation he passed expanded Medicaid coverage of psychotropic drugs. Bush is the clear front runner when it comes to drug company contributions. According to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), manufacturers of drugs and health products have contributed $764,274 to the 2004 Bush campaign through their political action committees and employees--far outstripping the $149,400 given to his chief rival, John Kerry, by 26 April. Drug companies have fared exceedingly well under the Bush administration, according to the centre's spokesperson, Steven Weiss. Identifying mental illness earlier is a good idea. However, if the drug companies are running the show, then what will be the standard for the use of dangerous and expensive medication? And what message are we sending to our children (to use the prohibitionists' phrase) if we're sending armed federal agents to harrass and arrest sick people using medical marijuana, and spending billions to arrest those who traffic in pot, while working with other drug traffickers to pump prozac and olanzapine into children whose behavior is slightly off "normal"? 10:00:46 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Judge defies sentencing rules Via TalkLeft comes this AP report: n a scathing criticism of the system used to punish federal crimes, a judge on Monday called the government's sentencing guidelines unconstitutional, saying they unfairly limit the authority of judges. In a series of drug cases, U.S. District Judge William Young said the guidelines put too much power in the hands of prosecutors and give judges too little discretion in sentencing. ....In his ruling, Young said he believes the sentences handed down to five defendants were too harsh and violated their constitutional right to due process. Young asked the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to throw out the sentences and send the cases back for new sentencing hearings. The Judge put out an amazing supersentencing memo (pdf) -- 174 pages indicting the current system, complete with graphs, charts, detailed references and some very interesting writing. Here's one part of it, where he talks about the 5 cases that sparked the memo: These sentencing memoranda deal with five criminals. Three insisted on their constitutionally guaranteed trial by jury. The two others pled guilty and cooperated. The most evil and violent is a gang leader who had much information to give. The least, a woman, had little to give but went on courageously to finger a major drug lord. This is reality. Richard Green is a retail drug dealer preying on the inhabitants of one of Boston’s public housing projects. On two occasions he sold small quantities of crack cocaine (0.6 grams and 2.4 grams respectively) to an undercover informant. The government seeks to imprison him for 24 years. William Olivero is a New York worker for a massive drug conspiracy whose kingpin (and major drug activity) are located in Massachusetts. Though not himself a dealer, Olivero has, on occasion, delivered kilogram quantities of cocaine and associated drug money for the kingpin. Olivero possesses a handgun. The kingpin has been sentenced to life imprisonment for his offenses. The government seeks to imprison Olivero for twenty-four to thirty years. Jason Pacheco is a marijuana dealer who knew the kingpin, who on occassion purchased kilogram quantities of cocaine from the kingpin for his own account, and who once accommodated the kingpin by allowing his garage to be used for the brief storage and transshipment of a multi-kilogram quantity of cocaine. The government seeks to imprison him for twelve to fifteen years. Edward K. Mills is a multiple murderer who led a vicious street gang. Eventually apprehended, he recognized the jig was up and cooperated with authorities. A gang leader himself, he had much information to give and his disclosures have led to the conviction of another murderer and the freeing of an individual wrongfully convicted of murder. The government seeks to imprison him for ten years. “Jane Doe,” a pseudonym, is a young, single mother. A drug addict, she dealt cocaine to support her habit. Eventually apprehended, she too cooperated and testified in open court so that the government might secure the conviction of an important drug lord from her homeland. In light of her cooperation, the government recommends a short sentence. As an alien, however, the government proposes to deport her back to her homeland where, the government admits, she will almost certainly be killed, perhaps after torture. To achieve its ends, the government routinely imposes a stiff penalty upon defendants who exercise their constitutional right to trial by jury. In the first of the instant cases, the government’s attempts to burden a citizen’s right to a jury of his peers exceeds all constitutional bounds. The second case involves repeated instances of illegal fact bargaining. The third involves enforcement of a bargain with a cold-blooded killer that the Court characterized as evincing “a moral code more suited to the alleys of Baghdad than the streets of Boston,” and the fourth reveals such callous indifference to innocent human life as would gag any fair minded observer. And this Court –- stripped of any meaningful role in the sentencing of offenders who come before it –- can do little more than explain what’s going on. That, at least, I will do. Then he goes on to do so at length. Very interesting stuff. Nice to see more of the judiciary rebelling against the gutting of judicial discretion and the continual tipping of power to the prosecutor. 9:57:47 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []