I just got an email from a friend who seems to think that asking Obama whether he thinks he should have done a long stretch in the pokey for using drugs is a sly way of attacking Obama. No, no, no. Obama is the candidate that I am most likely to support right now, for reasons I'll lay out hopefully sometime this week (I'm on a miserably tight deadline for a print piece). That was my not-so-sly way of attacking the drug war. None of our politicians thinks that they should have gone to jail for their youthful drug use, I presume--in Obama's case, I note, this would have disbarred him and thus effectively ended his political career. I would like them to answer, then, why they take the position that other people should go to jail for simple possession. And that applies to any politician who supports continuing our current drug policy, left, right, or center.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
jeez. Is The Atlantic a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Obama campaign, or is it just a shameless defense of metropolitan cultural interests that leads you all to shill for him?
I don’t think that’s correct. I’m not familiar with Illinois’ Rules of Professional Responsibility or the standards set by their Board of Law Examiners but here in Minnesota while you’re required to disclose any previous criminal charges or arrests (even a speeding ticket), it wouldn’t necessarily keep you from being admitted to the Bar. Nor once admitted would it necessarily result in even the suspension of your license. Generally the sorts of offenses that endanger your law license are things that involve professional misconduct such as a betrayal of the trust of your client, mishandling property entrusted to you, etc. While substance abuse is an issue of concern in the legal profession, unless there is a charge that it has somehow interfered with or compromised your representation of a client, it generally isn’t handled by the disciplinary board (and offenses committed before you were admitted are even less likely to affect your license).
You could just ask them "What was it about Prohibition that you think was such a success as to justify our copying it now?"
Maybe we need a change in tactics. How about a surge, with the state police and National Guard going door-to-door in Philadelphia or Baltimore?
Since we're ignoring the Constitution anyway, why not?
This Congress doesn't know the meaning of quagmire or miserable failure.
It's likely that some people want to retain laws criminalizing drug possession for the same reason that prosecutors argued in favor of keeping sodomy statutes on the books: they allow us to convict and imprison offenders who have committed more serious crimes (rape, drug dealing) in the absence of strong evidence to support those charges. This comes up quite a bit in discussions of the composition of the inmate population: While it's true that a sizable percentage of the incarcerated are in for non-violent drug crimes, many of these individuals may have been charged with distribution or other serious counts and pled down to simple possession. To put it bluntly, possession charges aren't for the Obamas of the world. They are kept so the state can lock up those who it suspects, but cannot prove, have committed "real" offenses.
I find this disagreeable in the extreme, but it explains a lot about criminalization and charging decisions.
FYI:
You may already know this but Obama is for drug courts where non-violent offenders dont have to go to prison, but to rehab where they dont have to have their lives ruined over a little bit of pot or whatever they're drug of choice may be.
From his website:
Eliminate Sentencing Disparities
Obama believes the disparity between sentencing crack and powder-based cocaine is wrong and should be completely eliminated.
Expand Use of Drug Courts
Obama will give first-time, non-violent offenders a chance to serve their sentence, where appropriate, in the type of drug rehabilitation programs that have proven to work better than a prison term in changing bad behavior.
Why do politicians support the current drug laws to lock up people for possession, when they don't think they should have been jailed for their own youthful indiscretions? Simple: they think there are votes to be had from taking that position. There may be a handful, nation-wide, who actually think the law is justified on its (dubious) merits. But I'll wager that the vast majority could care less.
When you think about it, that's probably the key to how they would answer the "what was so great about Prohibition?" question. It got votes for a lot of politicians who supported it.
Politicians aren't elected because of what they believe. They're elected because of what their voters believe.
When politicians say what they truly believe, rather than what they think the majority of their audience already believes, said politicians get labled as "crazy." See, e.g., Ron Paul.
If you want to vote for a viable, non-crazy candidate, you're going to have to live with the fact that s/he's also a big fat liar about what he truly believes. Or dumb as a post.
Amber nailed it. Once upon a time, possession was a minor offense, but trafficking was serious. It was hard for prosecutors to get enough evidence to convict major dealers. So the penalties for possession were raised to absurd levels, giving prosecutors the ability to send anyone caught with drugs to jail for a long time. They would have us think they use this power only against the real bad people. If you trust your local prosecutor a lot, this may make you happy.
Isn't it very rare for people to go to jail for simple possession?
I've always thought that we should just make breathing illegal and be done with it. Then prosecutors can decide whether we have committed some more serious crime that justifies bringing a prosecution for breathing.
"Isn't it very rare for people to go to jail for simple possession?"
If you have enough money to afford a lawyer, or you aren't "that bad of a kid" i.e. you have good grades and/or are in college. Myself and a lot of my friends got out of a lot of trouble just because we were college students.
"Why do politicians support the current drug laws to lock up people for possession, when they don't think they should have been jailed for their own youthful indiscretions? Simple: they think there are votes to be had from taking that position. There may be a handful, nation-wide, who actually think the law is justified on its (dubious) merits. But I'll wager that the vast majority could care less."
While the majoritty of Americans support decriminalization according to some polls I've seen, they don't actually vote on it. It's like how most voters think we should do more about global warming but vote more on gay marriage.
James, what seems to be rare nowadays is a case where a prosecutor can't find some way of charging more than simple possession - if he's so inclined. E.g., if you shared a joint with a friend, you're a "dealer" - never mind that you didn't receive money. If you've got more than a tiny quantity, you can be convicted of dealing even though you never passed any on to anyone else. If it was in your car, in some places you can be charged with driving while high, even though you hadn't used any yet. If it's in your house and there's also a gun in the house, they might try for a firearms enhancement.
And of course, for all of these cases the prosecutor has the choice of whether to pile on the added charges or not, and for that matter of whether to pursue the possession charge or not. If an ambassador's son such as Obama had been caught, his parents would have hired a good lawyer, and probably the case would have been dropped after he attended an anti-drug propaganda session and did a little community service - but if the prosecutor just didn't like him, or was ambitious to move up to higher office and thought it would play well with the voters, it's possible that he could have gone to prison, and been forever barred from the legal profession as a "felon".
Drug laws don't do much to prevent the abuse of drugs, but they do greatly increase the possibilities for the abuse of power - and I can no longer believe that the politicians that set it up that way don't know what they are doing. I'm not familiar with the details of Obama's proposal, but I'm sure that as enacted, it would increase the numbers of those the law goes easy on, but still leave room for prosecutors to imprison those they especially want to for the exact same crime.
I think the best answer would be for Obama to say that first time possession offenders with small amounts shouldn't go to jail, but only be sentenced to some kind of drug education/rehab program. Oh, wait, he's already done that. So what's Megan's point again? (Other than that she doesn't do her homework?)
hi
always lock your door 1n 1998 the police came to my house for loud music the music was to loud to hear knock the door they opened and the police saw 3 lines on a mirror in my livingroom they entered and searched my house in my bedroom on my gunrack was a loaded shotgun. at 34 years old I was charged with simple drug possession while in possession of loaded firearm. I bonded out I got a lawyer and was going to trial, i was 10 minutes late for my prelim and the judged revoked my bail took me into custody and bail was raised to $100,000 next day my attorney told me if I pled guilty i would be released with I said no my lawer was booked 3 months so I waved time and sat in jail waiting for trial one week before my trial my attorney visited and stated winning at trial dont look good and losing would send me to prison up to 4 years a risk he said he wouldnt try but then stated if I pled guilty today I would be released with suspended prison sentence and probation i took his word pled guilty and was released and i now look back and see i was led into this by a prosecutor who must made a deal with my lauyer for leniency on another client for my guilty plea. So on a background check I'm a convicted drugged out gun toting felon. My dad gave me that gun for christmas at 12 years old and it was used for hunting and protection. All my researh indicates charges for this gun enhancment you must be charged with dealing or trafficking and the gun to protect your drugs. I lost my job and carreer field ruined It took me 5 years of gas station jobs before a door opened and I was hired given the chance to reenter my same carreer field and I still work for that company although im stuck because my felony prohibits me from any further promotions. This is a miscarriage of justice my attorney should go to prison along with the prosecutor and judge for scaring me for life.
jitos tonunomu gukma
pyly http://ka534575.je8h3jp.net/sitemap3.html [url=http://ka534575.je8h3jp.net/sitemap3.html ]zuma[/url] hefet
jsfo wrvcdi dsgtbjy nzemc leghnz eopfjnh vxgyec
jsfo wrvcdi dsgtbjy nzemc leghnz eopfjnh vxgyec