Marijuana.com

Pompo

Are state's legislators on drugs?
12/7/07|The (New Jersey) Star-Ledger| by Tom Moran

When it comes to the drug war, New Jersey is among the most ferocious fighters in the country, jailing huge numbers of nonviolent offenders on mandatory sentences.

It hasn't worked. Every prosecutor in the state wants to reform the laws so we can divert more addicts into treatment and save the prison cells for violent criminals. So does the attorney general, the governor, and every blue-ribbon panel that's looked at it.

But the state Senate, following the lead of Senate President Richard Codey, is standing squarely in the way of reform. And that's not likely to change, according to several sources in the Senate, Assembly, and senior ranks of the Corzine administration.

"It's as dead as dead can be," said one Democratic senator, who preferred not to be named because he didn't want to step on Codey's toes.

Count this reform as a casualty of the poisonous way we play politics. Senators know that they could be lampooned in 30-second commercials as soft-headed liberals who want to surrender control of our streets to the drug lords. Yes, some opponents are no doubt sincere. But others are just scared.

"It's all about the politics," says Sen. Bernard Kenny, a supporter of reform. "You'd have to spend your whole election campaign trying to explain yourself on this. Most people are going to bow to that reality and just not touch it."

There is still some small chance for reform. Codey says he will not block a vote on it, as he could. And yesterday, he said he was open to compromise on first offenders. A senior official in the Corzine administration said reform is not yet "completely and totally dead."

But the mood this week among those pushing reform is grim, even morose.

"There is absolutely no good reason to continue this tremendous waste of resources and human life," says Judge Barnett Hoffman, a retired judge who sent hundreds of addicts to jail under the state's mandatory drug laws and later served as chairman of the Commission to Review Criminal Sentencing.

"This used to eat me up on the bench. I was taking a guy who really didn't belong in jail, a guy who is an addict and needs treatment. You put him in jail for three years at a cost of $35,000 a year, and what he really learns is new places to buy drugs and new ways to use drugs. And then you send him home without treatment and he goes back to the old neighborhood and it starts again. This is just crazy."

A minor correction: The cost of holding one inmate for a year, when you add it all up, is just over $45,000 a year, according to the Department of Corrections. High-quality drug treatment, which works much better, costs less than half that.

But you get the man's point. You hear a lot of that same frustration when you talk to the cops, prosecutors and judges who are on the front lines of the drug war.

The main culprit in New Jersey is the law mandating tough prison terms for minor drug dealers caught within 1,000 feet of a school. That is a big dragnet that covers almost every square inch of cities like Newark and Camden.

"I never saw one of these cases that had anything to do with a school," Hoffman says.

No one objects to the laws that double sentences for dealers who sell to children. But the practical effect of the school law is that urban dealers face much tougher penalties than suburban dealers. Not surprisingly, 96 percent of those caught in its web are African-American or Latino.

This law is plainly unjust. It is also expensive, and self-defeating. The bill that Codey opposes would scale back the zones to 200 feet, and give judges greater discretion.

Corzine, as is typical, has not worked the political levers at all. Several senators say they haven't even been approached.

So we plod along, and the addicts cycle in and out of jail, leaving a horrible trail of damage in their families and their communities.

But the politicians, come next election, can at least assure you that they are being tough on crime. No matter the cost.

 

elgrande

I think this is a myth. Yes, politics is a poisonous game, but there is tremendous popular support for medical marijuana. Even total legalization is registering around 40% support. If the conversation could be focused on re-legalizing cannabis as a starting point for overall drug war reform, I think there could be tremendous support. Drug warriors are good at changing the subject to other drugs...except alcohol and tobacco, of course. The problem is one of accurate journalism as much as anything else.

Buzzby

The most recent figure I've seen is 33%. Do you have the results of newer surveys?

I completely disagree. Debates about medical marijuana should focus entirely on medical marijuana because the drug warriors' angle is that "so-called medical marijuana" is just an excuse for potheads to get high without legal consequences". Most of the almost 80% of voters who favor legalizing medical marijuana are against legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes.

Similarly, debates about legalizing recreational marijuana should not mention general drug law reform. While a good portion of the voting public is willing to accept the idea of legal marijuana, they're solidly against lightening up on other recreational drugs. Tying marijuana to decriminalizing other drugs will turn off a lot of people who might otherwise be willing to listen.

If we want to win this war, we have to take it one battle at a time.

__________________

elgrande

Check out this link: Local Tax and Regulate Efforts

In votes to legalize and tax marijuana, Nevada voters came in at 44%, Columbia, Missouri -- 61%, Boston, Mass -- 58%

I agree with your point on focused debate. But I think the debate should focus on challenging the basic assumptions of many/most journalists and politicians that this plant, cannabis, is dangerous. When this misinformation is revealed for what it is, resistance to any use of the plant loses power.

To me, the biggest problem in overcoming fear of cannabis is poor journalism. The mainstream press has, in large part, been in lock step with the prohibitionists from day one. We see posts here from the few brave, well-informed journalists who see through the veil, but they don't get much air time on CNN or FOX. When that imbalance is corrected, the other issues - medical, personal, industrial and nutritional - take on a new light.

disheartenedwamerica

I think the better question is what is the DEA smoking, because whatever they are smoking...I want some. Staight from the horses mouth, "In the case of the Controlled Substances Act, the statute reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception outside the confines of a government-approved research project." DEA Briefs & Background, Drugs and Drug Abuse, Drug Descriptions, Marijuana and then they go on to say...."Medical marijuana already exists. It's called Marinol."...So let me get this straight, marijuana has no medical benifits at all, but they go on to say that there is a medicine already. I have a word for people like these...Idiots. Last time I checked, if something really is harmful, then there should be no pill form created. Then again the DEA is a good example of how murder, fail, and waste billions of tax dollars. Maybe we should start telling kids not to listen to the DEA. They are hurting our youth. Isn't that who they claim to be protecting...If that is true then they should admit they are a bad example. Thank you again DEA for proving your usefulness and overall intelligence.