State & Local Government

RSS Feed for this category

Public Hearing: New York State Commission On Sentencing Reform

Questions about this hearing may be directed to Patti Greco of the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services at (518) 485-6084. Registration to testify and attend is required. A press conference and rally sponsored by the Real Reform Coalition will take place at 9:00 AM.
Date: 
Tue, 11/13/2007 - 9:30am - 4:30pm
Location: 
42 West 44th Street
New York, NY
United States

Marijuana: Three of Four Reform Initiatives Pass in Hailey, Idaho

Voters in small-town Hailey, Idaho, Tuesday approved three out four marijuana initiatives placed on the ballot over the objections of town officials. Initiatives to legalize the medical use of marijuana, make marijuana the lowest law enforcement priority, and legalize industrial hemp all passed. A fourth measure, which would have mandated the city to tax and regulate marijuana sales, failed.

Some 1,288 eligible voters went to the polls in Hailey, with medical marijuana gaining the most votes (687), followed by hemp (683) and lowest priority (637). Taxation and regulation lost by a margin of 573-674.

The initiatives were the brainchild of Ryan Davidson, chairman of the Idaho Liberty Lobby, who three years ago began efforts to put marijuana on the ballot in the Wood River Valley towns of Hailey, Sun Valley, and Ketchum. Local authorities in all three communities denied his petitions, and a series of court battles ensued, out of which Davidson emerged victorious. Davidson is working on initiatives for Sun Valley and Ketchum.

The initiatives require the city of Hailey to create a Community Oversight Committee to oversee implementation. They also require the city of Hailey to lobby other branches of government for reform of the marijuana laws.

State and local officials are likely not happy. The Idaho Attorney General's Office issued a statement last week reminding voters that marijuana possession is a crime under both state and federal law, and Hailey City Attorney Ned Williamson predicted before the vote that the city could be the subject of expensive litigation at taxpayer expense if voters approved the measures.

But now the voters have spoken, and it is up to city officials to heed their will.

Feature: Denver Votes to Make Marijuana Offenses Lowest Law Enforcement Priority

For the third time in as many years, voters in Denver told local officials to quit arresting people for marijuana offenses. An initiative that would direct the city to make adult marijuana possession offenses the lowest law enforcement priority won Tuesday with 57% of the vote.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/files/saferrally.jpg
SAFER rally, August 27, 2007
The vote came two years after the marijuana reform group SAFER (Safer Alternatives for Enjoyable Recreation) pulled off a successful initiative to legalize the possession of up to an ounce in Denver -- a win city officials have ignored by continuing to arrest people under state law -- and one year after Denver voters gave majority support to marijuana legalization in a failed statewide initiative.

The measure rolled to easy victory despite the opposition of Mayor John Hickenlooper and other city officials who said it was meaningless and would not be enforced. It was also opposed by the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News, both of which editorialized against it.

Denver now joins cities like Seattle; Oakland, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood, California; Missoula, Montana; Eureka Springs, Arkansas; and -- also on Tuesday -- Hailey, Idaho; that have embraced the lowest priority movement.

The question now is how city officials will respond to a third rebuke from voters. The mayor's office did not respond Wednesday to inquiries from Drug War Chronicle. SAFER executive director Mason Tvert said officials were huddled Wednesday afternoon trying to draft a response.

But Tvert wasn't waiting to celebrate. "The people of Denver have made it unmistakably clear they do not want their city wasting its limited law enforcement resources arresting and prosecuting adults for possessing a drug less harmful than alcohol," he said. "Whereas marijuana users were once the law-breakers in the Mile High City, city officials will now be the ones violating the law if they do not respect the will of the voters."

In Seattle, arrests for adult marijuana possession plummeted following passage of the initiative, and in Missoula city officials recently adopted an official policy directing police to stop citing adults for possession and encouraging prosecutors to treat any cases as their lowest priority. That shows it can work in Denver if officials cooperate, Tvert said.

"The experiences of these other cities proves that Denver can make changes in how they handle adult marijuana possession," Tvert said. "We hope city officials will respect the will of the voters who elected them and direct police to stop arresting adults for simply possessing small amounts of marijuana. It's not a matter of whether they can do this, but a matter of whether they will. If they do not, they are officially breaking more Denver laws than any adult marijuana user."

Tvert wasn't the only one crowing, nor was he the only one warning elected officials to take heed. Spokesmen for leading national marijuana reform organizations used almost identical language when contacted by the Chronicle.

"This is good news, but not unexpected," said Keith Stroup, founder of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). "The mayor should be looking at who he represents. In three election cycles now, Denver voters have clearly said don't arrest pot smokers."

"We're very, very pleased," said Bruce Mirken, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP). "Hopefully, this time Denver city officials will listen to the message the voters have so clearly sent them."

That hasn't happened so far. Tvert and SAFER are waiting to see if it will. "At this point we're just wondering what they're going to do," he said. "The big tough city officials who were willing to say how they were going to ignore this have been mum all day, waiting for the mayor to take the lead. Will they challenge this in the courts, or will they announce they will follow the will of the voters?"

Stay tuned. All the dust hasn't settled yet in Denver. But the voters have spoken loud and clear for the third time. Perhaps it will take a city official getting defeated in the next election, but perhaps city officials won't want to take that chance now.

Denver Poised to Make Marijuana a Lowest Priority

Location: 
Denver, CO
United States
Publication/Source: 
Denver Post
URL: 
http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_7388701

Press Release: California State Supreme Court to Hear Landmark Medical Marijuana Employment Discrimination Case on Tuesday

[Courtesy of Drug Policy Alliance] For Immediate Release: November 5, 2007 For More Info: Tony Newman, (646) 335-5384 or Tamar Todd (510) 593-4908 California State Supreme Court to Hear Landmark Medical Marijuana Employment Discrimination Case on Tuesday Gary Ross, Fired After Testing Positive for Medical Marijuana, Despite Using Off-Hours and in Accordance with California Law Leading Public Health Organizations File Amicus in Support of Gary Ross; Outcome May Affect Thousands of Working Californians Who Use Medicine to Relieve Chronic Pain On Tuesday, November 6, 2007, the California Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc., a case in which a lawful medical marijuana patient was fired by his employer after testing positive for medical marijuana he used during off-hours in accordance with his doctor’s recommendation for the treatment of severe pain. The case concerns Gary Ross, who treats his chronic pain and muscle spasms from a military injury with physician-recommended medical marijuana in compliance with California law. Mr. Ross provided the company with documentation of his legal status as a medical marijuana patient but was fired after eight days on the job because he tested positive for THC in a pre-employment drug test. Mr. Ross filed suit alleging wrongful termination but two lower courts sided with the employer, holding that the company did not discriminate against Mr. Ross based on his disability and chosen treatment. “The livelihoods of thousands of working Californians who are using medical marijuana in full compliance with state law are at stake in this case,” said Tamar Todd, staff attorney at the Drug Policy Alliance. Mr. Ross is represented by Joe Elford of Americans for Safe Access, who will be arguing that case in front of the California Supreme Court on Tuesday. The Drug Policy Alliance filed an amicus (friend-of-the-court) brief in support of Mr. Ross on behalf of leading national and state public health organizations, including the American Pain Foundation, the American Medical Women’s Association, the Lymphoma Foundation of America, the American Nurses Association, the California Nurses’ Association, the AIDS Action Council, the National Women’s Health Network, Doctors of the World – USA and the Gay Men’s Health Crisis. The brief argues that patients should not be forced to choose between the best course of treatment or employment, and outlines the sound evidence that marijuana is medically appropriate treatment for chronic pain and other serious medical conditions. Signatories to the brief represent a powerful contingent of medical and public health organizations that represent a broad class of patient-employees. “These leading health organizations recognize the need for patients to be able to follow their doctors’ advice for pain relief and treatment without fear of being fired from their jobs for doing so,” said Todd. Oral argument is scheduled for November 6, 2007 at 9 a.m., in the California Supreme Court‘s Capitol courtroom, Stanley Mosk Library and Courts Building, 914 Capitol Mall, Sacramento.
Location: 
Sacramento, CA
United States

Families: Utah Supreme Court Rules Mere Presence of Drugs in Home is Not Child Endangerment

The mere presence of illegal drugs in a home is not sufficient to allow prosecution under a state law that says children are endangered when exposed to them, the Utah Supreme Court ruled last Friday. The court ruled unanimously in State v. Gallegos, which consolidated the cases of two women charged with felony child endangerment after police found drugs in their homes.

In one case, police found cocaine in a purse and a jewelry box on a dresser in a room where the mother and her three children were located. In the other, they found methamphetamine precursors in a set of plastic drawers in an outbuilding of a home where a 13-year-old lived with her mother.

The Utah law, similar to those in many other states, makes it a felony to allow a child "to be exposed to, to ingest or inhale, or to have contact with a controlled substance, chemical substance, or drug paraphernalia."

In both cases, defense attorneys argued that "exposure" must include actual risk of harm and that the mere presence of drugs in the home did not rise to that level. The state high court agreed.

"There must be an actual risk of harm... Exposure must go beyond mere visual or auditory exposure, such as exposure to images of drugs on television or an infant being able to see a controlled substance from the confines of a crib," Chief Justice Christine Durham wrote for the court.

"The child must have a reasonable capacity to actually access or get to the substance or paraphernalia or to be subject to its harmful effects, such as inhalation or touching. This seems a common sense interpretation of the statute," the court said.

If the mere presence of a controlled substance were enough to establish grounds for child endangerment, many people who use legal prescription drugs "would be committing felonies," the opinion noted.

Sentencing Reform: Massachusetts Bar Association Forms Drug Policy Task Force

The Massachusetts Bar Association (MBA) will form a drug policy task force, MBA President David White, Jr. announced last week. The task force will examine current drug policy and consider reforms, White said.

"We look to build a coalition from a broad spectrum of the Massachusetts health care, business and law enforcement communities. The coalition will take a hard look at the difficult questions of drug addiction and punishment of drug-related crimes," said White. "This is one part of our effort to improve sentencing in Massachusetts. Reforms of the current sentencing system will reduce crime, rebuild families and communities and save money," he added.

White's announcement came as a two-hour symposium on sentencing at the Statehouse Great Hall came to an end. During that symposium, panels of legislators, advocates, and attorneys suggested that the Bay State could see meaningful sentencing reform for the first time in years.

"I'm more optimistic than ever that we can have a useful discussion," said panelist state Sen. Robert Creedon Jr., Senate chairman of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary.

Mandatory minimum sentencing came under attack from several panelists, including at least one law enforcement official. Suffolk County Sheriff Andrea Cabral said mandatory minimums make treating inmates with drug problems more difficult and constitute obstacles to rehabilitation.

"The sheriffs, we are on the forefront of reentry programs, but we are stymied by mandatory minimums that don't allow us to classify people for acceptance into some of our programs," Cabral said.

Other panelists at the symposium included Northeastern University criminal justice professor James Alan Fox, Families Against Mandatory Minimums vice president and general counsel Mary Price, Washington state Rep. Roger Goodman (who leads the pioneering King County Bar Association Drug Policy Project), and several ranking Massachusetts elected officials.

White was named head of the MBA earlier this year. He has said that sentencing reform is one of his top priorities.

Feature: Can Medical Marijuana Cost You Your Kid? In California, It Can

Ronnie Naulls never saw it coming. The church-going businessman, husband, and father of three young girls knew he was taking a risk when he opened a medical marijuana dispensary in Corona, a suburban community in the high desert of Riverside County east of Los Angeles.

Although he had played by the rules, obeyed all state laws, and successfully battled the city in court to stay open, Naulls knew there was a chance of trouble with law enforcement. He knew there was a chance of the federal DEA coming down on him, as it has done with at least 40 other dispensaries this year alone.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/files/naullsfamily.jpg
Naulls family (courtesy green-aid.com)
But when they did come down on him, it was far worse than he ever imagined. At 6:00am on July 17, the quiet of Naulls' suburban neighborhood was disrupted by the whir of hovering helicopters as heavily armed DEA agents stormed his home and collective. They seized cash and marijuana, they seized his property, they seized his personal and business bank accounts. They arrested him on federal marijuana charges.

But that wasn't enough for the DEA. The raiders also called Child Protective Services (CPS). With Naulls already hustled off to jail, his wife sitting handcuffed in a police car, and his home in a shambles after being tossed by the DEA, CPS social workers said his three children were endangered and seized them. Naulls and his wife were also charged with felony child endangerment.

The three girls -- ages 1, 3, and 5 -- were held in protective foster care, with Naulls and his wife only able to see them during a one-hour supervised visit a week. "My oldest girl thought she was being punished for doing something wrong," he said. "When we went to visit her, she said, 'Daddy, we're ready to come home now, we promise to be good.'"

But the Naulls couldn't tell their children the only thing that would comfort them -- that they would be coming home soon. That would violate CPS regulations because it might not be true. In fact, it took five weeks of hearings and heartache before a family court judge decided the children would indeed be safe with their parents. But the child endangerment charges still stand.

"I was numb, totally flabbergasted, outraged, and left speechless," said Naulls. "They told my wife we were endangering the kids because of the medicine we had in the house, but we only had some in a refrigerator in the garage that has an alarmed door and my own medicine in a locked container in my office -- the DEA broke that lock. Would they treat us that way if it had been prescription Xanax?"

The DEA was not apologetic about its handiwork. A DEA spokesman confirmed that its people had called CPS. "Any time we do an operation where children are present, we have a responsibility to call CPS," said Special Agent Jose Martinez. "But we don't make the decision about whether the children are endangered."

While it would not discuss particulars of the Naulls case, the Children's Services Division of the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services, of which CPS is a part, denies that medical marijuana use or presence is a reason for removal of children on the filing of endangerment charges.

"Drugs alone does not constitute a reason for removal," said Susan Lowe, director of the division. "More relevantly, the issue of medical marijuana does not constitute a reason for us to remove children. There have to be other issues present that indicate neglect or abuse."

That claim brought a sharp response from Oakland-based attorney James Anthony, who represented Naulls on land use issues related to his dispensary. While he supported Lowe's statement of the Riverside County CPS policy, he said it didn’t reflect reality in the county.

"As a medical cannabis activist attorney and friend of the Naulls family, I would say that is very good news and seems to reflect a change of position -- or a position held at the top that has not filtered down yet to the working staff of CPS," said Anthony. "Riverside County CPS has an alarming reputation as quick to take children out of medical cannabis households and to press endangerment charges," he said. "The position the director laid out is exactly as it should be: medical cannabis is no more relevant to the best interests of children than any prescription drug -- the California Supreme Court said as much when it said that medical cannabis is as legal as any prescription drug," Anthony pointed out.

"In the Naulls case," Anthony continued, "what does the agency allege is the 'neglect or abuse'? Two loving parents? A nice middle-class home? Parents who care enough to avail themselves of legal, harmless, medicine to keep themselves well? The only abuse I'm aware of at the Naulls home was the abuse done by federal law enforcement when they invaded that home without warning and heavily armed -- terrorizing those poor children for no reason at all. The DEA could have called me and I would have advised my client to turn himself in -- it's not like he was hiding. If CPS wants to charge someone with child abuse, they should start with the DEA. Under their own standards as described here, there is no basis to prosecute Anisha Naulls for anything."

If there is any child abuse involved, it is coming from the state, agreed Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, a group concerned with abuses of the child protection system.

"What has been done to these children is government-sanctioned child abuse," Wexler said. "Whether one believes what Mr. Naulls did is legal or not, there is not a shred of evidence that running a medical marijuana co-op harms children -- and overwhelming evidence that foster care does children enormous harm," he said.

"The act of removal from everyone loving and familiar can traumatize a child for life, and the younger the child, the greater the likelihood for such harm," Wexler continued. "For a young enough child it's an experience akin to a kidnapping. Children often believe that they have done something terribly wrong and now they are being punished. That's reflected in one child telling her father 'Daddy, we're ready to come home now; we promise to be good.' All that harm occurs even when the foster home is a good one. The majority are. But several studies suggest that at least one in three foster children is abused in foster care. So these children have gone from a situation where they clearly were not abused, into foster care, where the odds are at least one in three that they will be abused," Wexler said.

"I warn all my dispensary clients that the federal government will try to capture and imprison you, but it hadn't occurred to me that the government will also kidnap your children," said Anthony. "It's just unbelievable, barbaric."

Anthony also works with Green Aid, a group originally set up to support Ed Rosenthal's legal battles with the feds in Northern California. Green Aid has set up a Naulls Family Defense Fund to aid the now impoverished family in its effort to stay together and out of prison.

Sadly, the Naulls are not alone. Veteran activists say child removals by CPS or the loss of custody battles in California family courts because of medical marijuana are not uncommon and becoming more frequent.

"Medical cannabis patients and providers getting their kids taken away is, unfortunately not new," said Angel McLary Raich, who won the first medical cannabis custody case in California in the wake of Proposition 215. Despite a variety of debilitating and life-threatening conditions, Raich and her patient outreach group Angel Wings, have since become a resource for other medical cannabis community members facing either the child protection bureaucracy or the vicissitudes of family court in child custody cases.

Raich, who is probably best known as the plaintiff in the Supreme Court's medical marijuana case, Raich v. Ashcroft, said involvement with medical cannabis as a factor in either child custody or abuse or endangerment cases is a recurring problem. "I know of many cases where the kids have been taken away permanently, others where they have to have supervised visitation."

"We think this kind of thing is horrible," said Noah Mamber, legal coordinator for Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the medical marijuana defense group. "Even as we are making progress on the criminal front, with the cops becoming better educated, as well as other areas like employment and housing, as the legal intake person for ASA I find myself taking many, many calls where medical cannabis is an issue for CPS or in family court. I've probably had 30 or 40 in the last couple of years, and those are just the people who call us."

That means there is work to do, activists said. Some are undertaking an educational process with the family courts and CPS, while others are looking to the legislature for relief.

"No one seems to understand medical marijuana in this context," said Mamber. "There seems to be an unfortunate bias in CPS workers and family court judges. There are cases where there are no other issues except medical marijuana, and they will force them to quit taking their medicine if they want their kids. It is absolutely true that there are cases where patient parents are being treated unfairly by CPS and the family court system."

"An educational process for the courts and agencies is definitely needed," said Anthony. "They can act with the best of intentions, yet wield an incredibly devastating impact on families because of their lack of knowledge."

Raich pioneered such educational work in Alameda County. The work continues, she said. "I'm working on training law enforcement and dealing with CPS and family court," she said. "That's my real passion. I cannot tolerate watching other people lose their kids over this stuff. It is just so wrong."

If anyone is having problems with CPS or family court over medical marijuana issues, call her, Raich said. Her number is in the Oakland phone book and contact information is on her web site.

ASA is working to even the playing field for patients through legislative action, Mamber said. "As it is now, family courts and CPS don't seem to be aware of Prop. 215 and Senate Bill 420, so we need legislation to guide them. We have drafted a bill that would amend the child protection law so that the medical marijuana status of a parent cannot be the sole basis for removal of a child," he explained. "They need to quit forcing patients to stop taking their medicine. This measure won't stop CPS from doing its job, but it will stop it from persecuting medical marijuana patients."

All that is going to take time. In the meantime, said Raich, medical marijuana patients or providers with children need to play it extremely safe. "Make sure you're being a good parent," she said. "Make sure your cannabis is out of reach of the children, make sure your house is clean, there are no hazards, always plenty of milk and formula on hand. Don't grow in the house, don't dry in the house, don't have more pot than food in the refrigerator. Take a parenting class. Know what you need to do. And if the cops come to the door, don't let them in without a warrant."

As for Ronald Naulls, he's still a bit shell-shocked. "I'm a businessman and a network engineer. I don't have a criminal record and I don't want to go to jail. I don't want to have to fight the state to keep my daughters. I'm praying for God's love, and I ask everyone to pray for me. But this is more than just about me, this is a fight for the patients and for my family."

Marijuana: Florida Bill Would Toughen Penalties for Growing

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum (R), an inveterate drug warrior dating back to his days in the US Congress, and two hard-line state legislators have unveiled a bill for the 2008 state session that attempts to crack down on the Sunshine State's flourishing indoor marijuana growing industry. The bill, which is not yet available on the Florida legislature's web site, would dramatically decrease the number of growing plants needed to prosecute someone as a drug trafficker, a first-degree felony with a mandatory minimum three-year prison sentence.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/files/mccollumetal.jpg
McCollum press conference
Under current Florida law, growers can be charged as traffickers only if they grow more than 300 plants. Federal marijuana laws require 100 plants to trigger the equivalent offense. But under the "Marijuana Grow House Eradication Act," it would take only 25 plants to trigger a trafficking charge.

But there is more nastiness embedded in the measure. It would also create new penalties for those who own a house for the purpose of growing marijuana and those who live in the house or take care of the grow op. It would also ratchet up penalties for people who have both kids and a grow op, and ratchet them up even higher if the kids are three or under.

The bill is a response to an apparent explosion in marijuana grows in Florida. According to McCollum's press release announcing the measure, indoor grow ops were detected in 41 of Florida's 67 counties. The number of indoor grows busted in Florida ranks it second only to California, the release said.

The bill will not be heard until next spring's legislative session, but that didn't stop McCollum and his legislative and law enforcement allies from getting the ball rolling earlier this month. "As Florida's Attorney General, my priority is protecting our children and our communities from the devastation of illegal drugs," said McCollum. "This legislation targets those who grow marijuana for profit."

"Every time law enforcement can detect a grow house and arrest those involved with it, less crime will be on our streets," said cosponsor Senator Steve Oelrich (R-Gainesville), adding that the main purpose of this legislation is eliminating the spread of illegal drugs in Florida. "This legislation will provide law enforcement with critical tools to get these narcotics out of our kids' hands and put drug traffickers behind bars."

"In Florida, those who use grow houses to traffic drugs belong in prison," added Representative Nick Thompson (R-Fort Myers). "Under this legislation we are clearly telling drug dealers, 'if you grow, you go!'"

"Whether grown outdoors or in a garage, marijuana today is extremely potent and dangerous and the cultivation of this illicit drug will not be tolerated by DEA," chimed in Mark Trouville, Special Agent in Charge of the DEA Miami Field Division.

With some months until the bill is actually considered, saner heads will have time to craft a response. It remains to be seen if they will emerge to do so.

Sentencing: Ohio Senate Passes Bill to Equalize Crack/Powder Cocaine Disparity By Raising Sentences

The Ohio Senate marched resolutely backward Tuesday as it passed a measure, Senate Bill 73 that would eliminate the disparity in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine -- by raising sentences for powder cocaine to make them as harsh as those for crack. The measure now heads for the Ohio House.

In a reflection of federal laws that treat crack cocaine much more harshly than powder cocaine, Ohio state law makes possession of only 25 grams of crack a first-degree felony, while it takes 500 grams -- or 20 times as much -- powder cocaine to trigger the same charge. Ohio law makes any cocaine sales offense an offense "for which there is a presumption of a prison term" and calls for mandatory minimum prison sentences for any cocaine sale of five grams or more of crack or 10 grams of powder cocaine.

While black lawmakers in the Buckeye State have been calling for years for a measure to redress the disparity in sentencing, this is probably not what they had in mind. But the sponsor of the bill, State Sen. Ray Miller (D-Columbus), said upping the penalties for powder offenses was key to winning passage.

"We've got a growing problem in our rural areas of the state, and many of these members are well aware of the problem," Miller told the Cleveland Plain Dealer after the vote. That "broader understanding" that Ohio drug problems were not limited to inner city street corners swayed legislators, he said. "Fundamentally, equalizing the penalties at a higher level as opposed to bringing them down was key to passage," Miller said.

Some legislators who supported the bill did so despite concerns it could cost money. According to a nonpartisan fiscal analysis of the measure, it will cost $25 million a year or more in increased prison costs.

"That's real money," said State Sen. Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati), who voted for the bill anyway. "And that's what happens when we equalize penalties at a higher rate."

Miller retorted that the cost argument "doesn't hold much water" because ending the distinction will cause judges to opt for treatment over prison for cocaine offenders. "In the long term, I think it will help to reduce the prison population because there is a race factor involved, there is an economic factor involved. Now some of the judges are going to have to look at things a little differently," Miller said.

But Miller's retort doesn't hold much water given that the law mandates prison sentences for most cocaine sales offenses.

The Ohio Senate's move to stiffen powder cocaine penalties comes as the US Sentencing Commission, the US Supreme Court, and the Congress are all contemplating ways to undo the federal powder-crack cocaine sentencing disparity. None of those institutions are contemplating doing so by raising the penalties for powder cocaine offenses to the level of crack cocaine.

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, 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, 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, Safe 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, Marijuana (Gateway Theory, Marijuana -- Personal Use, Medical Marijuana, Hashish), Methamphetamine, New Synthetic Drugs (Synthetic Cannabinoids, Synthetic Stimulants), Nicotine, Prescription Opiates (Fentanyl, Oxycontin), Psychedelics (LSD, Mescaline, Peyote, Salvia Divinorum)YouthGrade School, Post-Secondary School, Raves, Secondary School