Saturday, October 22, 2005

Asa Hutchinson gets it half right Former director of the DEA Asa Hutchinson is running for Governor of Arkansas. In this article, he starts off on the right track: "Past drug offenses should not automatically disqualify someone for student aid," Hutchinson, a candidate for governor, told the Arkansas Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. The group met in a fall conference at the Radisson Hotel in downtown Fayetteville. Applicants for student loans are asked if they have used drugs in the past and, if so, are ineligible for loans, Hutchinson said. That's a mistake, he said. [...] "It's a mistake to put people right on the same track that lead to drug use in the first place by considering them unredeemable," he said. "If you deny people access to jobs by denying them the education they need, they will have little recourse in their mind other than going back to drugs." Good for him. But I didn't really expect him to get it, and sure enough... "However, if someone commits a drug offense while receiving a student loan, he should lose it," Hutchinson continued. "Chances are that if he has a drug problem while going to school, he will drop out and not repay the loan." Notice the conflation of "drug offense" with "drug problem." And the statement completely ignores the reality of how financial aid works. If a student's grades fall, he or she will lose their financial aid -- no need for this provision. The whole point of denying financial aid for a drug conviction is to punish the good student. That's right. They're after the low income students who get good grades despite using pot, but had the bad luck to get caught. I have worked with thousands of students. Each one is different. Some can't handle the stress, or the alcohol, or the freedom to watch soap operas all day. Some succeed despite the problems of the world being thrown at them. I have seen straight-A students who were leaders in student organizations and graduated with stacks of awards and honors despite smoking pot every single day they were in college. Asa gets the big picture wrong. The HEA financial provision should be repealed in its entirety. 9:31:51 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Supreme Court? Truth Laid Bear is putting out a call to bloggers to take a stand on Miers, so here's mine: I am neutral on the Miers nomination. Not much of a stand, I realize, but here are my reasons: I'd like to see what actually happens in the confirmation process, on the off-chance that we might learn something about her. I have to look at this specifically from the perspective of drug policy, and it's really hard to anticipate how a future justice will rule in these areas (take a look at the schizophrenic if not psychotic behavior of the justices in Raich). TalkLeft has said some encouraging things about her regarding criminal justice on one side -- her apparent loyalty to the executive branch is a potential downside. Everybody else wants to see how she'll vote on abortion -- I want to know what she thinks of the fourth amendment. So far, the Miers nomination has been quite entertaining, and I'd hate to see it end. 8:52:33 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

You cannot waive my rights Via TChris at TalkLeft comes this: The [Connecticut State Supreme] court ruled 3-2 that opposition to a search by one resident invalidates permission granted by another, which is contrary to most case law on the issue nationwide. Defense lawyers predict the ruling will be troublesome for police, and could apply not only to attempted searches of homes but also to searches of businesses and cars with several occupants. Although this was a ruling in relation to the state constitution, it has relevance to an upcoming Supreme Court case dealing with the same issue. (Georgia v. Randolph, Scott) The Supreme Court has already ruled in US v. Matlock that if two people control a home, the one at home can give consent to search, and the absent one is out of luck. So if you have a roommate and you're not there, your roommate can consent without a warrant and anything found can be used against you. However, Georgia v. Randolph, the issue is when both are home and one consents to the search while the other refuses -- ie., can the officers "shop around" for someone in the house that will give consent? The New York Court of Appeals in People v. Cosme ruled: "an individual who possesses the requisite degree of control over specific premises is vested in his own right with the authority to permit an official inspection of such premises and . . . this authority is not circumscribed by any 'reasonable expectation of privacy' belonging to co-occupants. Whether the principle is characterized as an 'assumption of risk' or a relinquishment of the 'expectation of privacy' guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, the fact remains that where an individual shares with others common authority over premises or property, he has no right to prevent a search in the face of the knowing and voluntary consent of a co-occupant with equal authority." My view is that nobody else can waive my rights and consent to a warrantless search of my person, house, papers or effects, simply because they are a roommate, spouse, or otherwise share a location with me. I get that notion from the Constitution of the United States, which says, in part: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I'm hoping that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the 4th Amendment in Georgia v. Randolph, but they haven't had a very good track record with that amendment. Regardless, if you share your home with someone, you might want to stop by Flex Your Rights with your roommate(s) and maybe pick up a copy of "Busted" while you're there. 3:18:58 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Small Town Texas Justice For a fascinating, yet disturbing weekend read, check out Crackpot Crackdown by Jordan Smith in yesterday's Austin Chronicle. Jackson County's DA Has Convicted 28 Black People on Drug Charges Via Manufactured Evidence and Railroaded Trials. Now a Small-Town Exile, Her Family, and a Few Neighbors Are Fighting Back It's a story of racism, a district attorney who runs the county, and drug convictions with absolutely no evidence. 11:17:02 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Dept. of Justice Prison Report The new Department of Justice US Prison Population report (pdf) is to be released tomorrow. Here are some of the key figures in the report (thanks to Common Sense for Drug Policy, and jackl): State Prison Inmates in 2002: 21.4% were drug offenders -- 265,000 out of 1,237,500. 31.5% of all women in state prison were serving time for drugs -- 25,100 out of 79,800 women total. 25.1% of all blacks in state prison were serving time for drugs -- 126,000 out of 501,700 blacks. 27.4% of all Hispanics in state prison were serving time for drugs -- 61,700 out of 225,000 Hispanics. 14.8% of whites in state prison were serving time for drugs -- 64,500 out of 435,100. Federal Prison Inmates 2003: Total: 158,426 Inmates Drug offenses: 86,972 Violent offenses: 16,688 Property offenses: 11,283 Public-order offenses: 42,325 (includes immigration and weapons) Other: 1,158 10:48:07 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

On recent deletions At Drug WarRant, I always welcome those who have opposing viewpoints. In fact, it's often refreshing to have someone actually have the guts to debate us about drug policy reform. (Note how recently we had a discussion that went on for hundreds of posts with "Jake.") So I feel the need to explain why I have deleted some comments recently. We have had a commenter here for quite some time who is quite involved and supportive in drug policy reform. Then another commenter recently showed up using the same name, with a very different viewpoint -- ie, a series of random disconnected inflammatory comments, including insults thrown at other commenters here at Drug WarRant. As I did not feel at the time that this second person had any intention of actually discussing anything, I deleted most of his comments. In the past day, he has actually asked some questions and made some posts that were relevant, and so those will stay. As long as he is actually discussing and not disrupting, he is welcome. It still leaves the question of two very different commenters with the same name -- perhaps one of them will choose to make a slight alteration. 10:37:28 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []