Congressional Bribes = No Big Fat Pension, Cocaine = Never Vote Again

So the United States Senate, shamed by the Duke Cunningham case, voted to deny pensions for former congressman and senators convicted of:

- Bribery of public officials and witnesses (Section 201 of Title 18);
- Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States (Section 371 of Title 18);
- Perjury committed under the statues of the United States or the District of Columbia in falsely denying the commission of bribery or conspiracy; and
- Subordination of perjury committed in connection with the false denial or false testimony of another individual.

Of course, if a senator is convicted of cocaine possession, he still gets his retirement.

How does that comport with our felon disenfranchisement laws? (See Spencer Overton or Renee Crawford for more on that subject.)

Making Possession of Marijuana a Class C Offense in Texas

From a comment left on the post of the Texas Possession of Marijuana statute: “What about HB 254, which amended this statute?”

House Bill 254 from the 79th legislative session, originally introduced by Harold Dutton, would have reclassified possession of up to one ounce of marijuana as a Class C misdemeanor. Currently, any usable amount up to two ounces is a Class B, and HB 254 would have left possession of one to two ounces at that level (same level as first time DWI). This would have allowed police officers to confiscate the marijuana, and write someone a ticket for it, rather than arresting them and further clogging the jails.

Unfortunately, despite sailing through the Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence committee unanimously, it was never scheduled for a floor vote, and thus died almost unnoticed.

Back to the question asked, actually the answer is that the Texas marijuana statute was not amended, and therefore, remains in its current form. But I will be happy to amend the statute in the blog, as soon as the Texas legislature does…

(See Grits for Breakfast’s usual outstanding coverage on this topic here)

Starbucks: good... Marijuana: bad

Howard Schultz is widely revered in business circles for taking a tiny coffee shop and turning it into Starbucks (2005 revenue – over $6 billion U.S. dollars). Print and TV magazines crawl all over themselves trying to get an interview with him.

The vast majority of Americans are not in favor of jailing anyone for possession of small amounts of marijuana (stay with me here, I’ll get back to Starbucks in a bit). In fact, based on the reactions I see when I explain the potential draconian consequences of a drug conviction to first time marijuana offender clients here in Austin, I’d venture to guess that most folks would be appalled to find out what could happen, even if it usually doesn’t. (Fortunately, there are usually creative ways to avoid convictions on first time offenses – but my point is about the penalty range, and the collateral consequences.)

Yet despite the public’s generally negative reaction to incarcerating marijuana users, I’ve also found a substantial number of people who say they are for decriminalization “for simple possession”, or “for users but not for dealers”. (Here’s where we get back to Starbucks.)

Why is it that when the business man sells coffee, and makes an obscene profit off of it at that, we applaud and wish we had his idea first? 

But when we read today’s story that three folks were arrested for possession of thirty pounds of marijuana in Hays County, we react very differently…(they are facing ten years in prison)

If you believe that it’s “OK” for a guy to sit on his couch, not bother anyone, and smoke a few grams of marijuana in a joint, then you can’t be offended when you find out the guy down the street who sold it to him has a pound. Or that the guy who sold it to the guy down the street has thirty pounds or even more. That’s how a business supply chain works after all.

We live in a supply and demand country, and 99% of the time, we deify the entrepreneur who profits greatly. It’s about time we drop the hypocrisy and eliminate the ridiculous penalties when it comes to marijuana and controlled substance businessmen. 

Travis County Probationers Face Lengthy Wait For Treatment

Steven Kreytak writes an excellent piece in today’s Statesman highlighting a major flaw in the Travis County probation system. I’m sure there are similar issues all over the state, but I am personally familiar with the situation based on representing defendants arrested for possession of controlled substances in Austin. From Kreytak’s article:

Statistics show that hundreds of newly sentenced probationers in Travis County are waiting to get into court-ordered substance abuse treatment.

Judges send some offenders to county jails to wait for a treatment slot to open up, exacerbating the county's ongoing jail crowding problem. Others are released into the community to fight their addiction on their own.

The wait for treatment is usually several months, department officials said.

The waiting lists in Travis County are among the longest in the state and could hinder the probation department's ambitious overhaul of its practices.

Naturally, when a defendant is sentenced to probation for a drug offense, “treatment and counseling as recommended” is a condition of their supervision. This is so common in Austin that prosecutors simply write the acronym “TCAR” on their files as a part of their plea bargain recommendations. 

However, for felony charges, this often means that the defendant must “wait in jail until a bed opens up” in whatever treatment facility is “recommended”. The practical effect of this is to add long periods of incarceration to a defendant’s sentence, because not enough counseling options are available.

It’s a problem that only adequate funding can address, because, as the article points out, offenders released from jail immediately into community supervision (probation) often do not have their treatment needs met immediately, and re-offend prior to receiving counseling. This leads to an immediate filing of a Motion to Revoke Probation, with the defendant back in court.

The defense lawyer is then left to argue to the judge that the original sentence of prison should not be imposed, because the client is still in need of treatment. Of course, at this point, the judge is even more likely to leave the defendant in jail waiting treatment, which compounds our local jail overcrowding problems.

25 Year Sentence for Prescription Painkillers Not Cruel and Unusual Punishment

60 Minutes documented the story of Richard Paey (“How One Man's Quest For Pain Relief Landed Him In Jail”) earlier this year. The case itself is filled with legal and non-legal issues:

  • Does possession of a certain amount of a substance establish “intent to deliver” or “trafficking” with no evidence of actual sale or delivery? 
  • Did the prosecutor’s pre-trial offer of probation with no jail imply that the State believed the evidence of trafficking was weak at best? 
  • Should possession of prescription medication without a valid prescription be punished as harshly (or more so) than possession of wholly illegal substances such as cocaine and heroin?
  • Should it be a felony, or criminalized at all?

On Wednesday, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeals affirmed his sentence, rejecting his primary appellate issue that the ridiculously lengthy sentence violated the Eight Amendment’s prohibition against Cruel and unusual punishment.

The majority opinion contains a fairly accurate (if unfortunate) review of Eight Amendment caselaw, and correctly states the proposition that “Historically, the Eight Amendment has protected individuals with respect to the method of punishment, not the length of a period of incarceration.” [Emphasis Mine] The court basically concludes that it is the legislature’s job to determine the length of sentences for various drug offenses, and from the legal perspective, they are probably correct.

This emphasizes the need, then, that we who oppose these punishments ask our elected representatives to reform these laws. After all, don’t forget that you are paying for his incarceration.

The dissent is a better read than the majority, arguing we could use a dose of common sense mixed in with precedent:

I suggest that it is cruel for a man with an undisputed medical need for a substantial amount of daily medication management to go to prison for twenty-five years for using self-help means to obtain and amply supply himself with the medicine he needed.

I suggest it is cruel for government to treat a man whose motivation to offend sprang from urgent medical problems the same as it would treat a drug smuggler motivated to obtain personal wealth and power at the expense of the misery his enterprise brings to others.

I suggest that it is unusual, illogical, and unjust that Mr. Paey could conceivably go to prison for a longer stretch for peacefully but unlawfully purchasing 100 oxycodone pills from a pharmacist than had he robbed the pharmacist at knife point, stolen fifty oxycodone pills which he intended to sell to children waiting outside, and then stabbed the pharmacist.

Well said.  Florida needs to elect that man to the legislature, so he can start rewriting the laws.

(Hat Tip: Windy Pundit for quoting the dissent)

Collateral Consequences of Possession of Marijuana Case in Texas

I was involved in an email exchange today with someone who asked me what the collateral consequences of accepting a plea bargain that would result in a regular conviction probation with no jail time for possession of marijuana in Texas. (He was considering accepting an offer from a prosecutor in a county where he was allowed to represent himself pro se – a topic for another post, another day.)

I emailed him back three possible collateral consequences of his plea bargain that I could come up with off the top of my head (there are others, and sometimes they are case by case or fact-specific):

Driver’s license suspension for 180 days – turns out the prosecutor had told him about this one. This is standard in the criminal court, because most Texas County Court judges know this, they will actually include this in the sentencing paperwork. No one will probably help the defendant seek an occupational license though, which would keep him “street legal” for all the places he needs to go (not for all of the fun places, of course, but still, unless you want to become Amish, you need some sort of a drivers license to be able to go about your daily business nowadays).

Denial of Student Aid for Certain Periods of Time – the prosecutor hadn’t mentioned this one. I think it’s very likely that the prosecutor didn’t know or didn’t care about this, but anyrate, under current Texas law, no one is required to tell a defendant about this. Not even the judge in admonishing an unrepresented defendant. I previously posted about the statute and the relevant ineligibility for federal aid time periods.

Non U.S. citizens subject to deportation - (if charging instrument alleges possession of more than 30 grams) – this also didn’t apply to the fellow who emailed me, but it’s really one of my pet peeves about the current state of marijuana laws in Texas. Texas criminalizes possession of any usable amount less than two ounces (approximately 56 grams) of marijuana as a Class B misdemeanor. The charging instrument is an information (not an indictment) for this level of offense. Even if a foreign national possessed merely 1 gram of usable marijuana, if he pleads to the offense as charged, he subjects himself to being deported, based on the accusation of “less than two ounces”, because that amount could be more than 30 grams, which triggers the federal deportation element.

I’ll end by adding that these are just some of the possible draconian consequences of conviction of marijuana offenses in Texas. Fortunately, in Austin, the prosecutors often accept pre-trial diversion applications for first time marijuana offenders. Williamson County has set up a pre-trial diversion program as well too. More Texas counties need to follow suit.

Denial of Student Aid For Possession of Controlled Substances (Including Marijuana)

20 U.S.C. § 1091 entitled “Student Eligibility” contains a laundry list of federal regulations and requirements for receiving federal student aid for college. 

Subsection (r) was enacted in 1998 as part of the “Higher Education Amendments” (no pun intended, apparently). In 2006 the statute was rewritten (or clarified) to show that it is intended only to apply to students who are currently receiving federal financial aid.  Marijuana is classified as a controlled substance for purposes of this law.

The chart below (included in the statute itself) describes the time periods that students are ineligible for, if convicted of possession of a controlled substance:

20 U.S.C. § 1091 (r) Suspension of eligibility for drug-related offenses

(1) In general

A student who has been convicted of any offense under any Federal or State law involving the possession or sale of a controlled substance shall not be eligible to receive any grant, loan, or work assistance under this subchapter and part C of subchapter I of chapter 34 of title 42 during the period beginning on the date of such conviction and ending after the interval specified in the following table:

If convicted of an offense involving:

 

The possession of a controlled substance:

Ineligibility period is:

First offense

1 year

Second offense

2 years

Third offense

Indefinite.

 

The sale of a controlled substance:

Ineligibility period is:

First offense

2 years

Second offense

Indefinite.

(2) Rehabilitation

A student whose eligibility has been suspended under paragraph (1) may resume eligibility before the end of the ineligibility period determined under such paragraph if—

    (A) the student satisfactorily completes a drug rehabilitation program that—

        (i) complies with such criteria as the Secretary shall prescribe in regulations for purposes of this paragraph; and

        (ii) includes two unannounced drug tests; or

        (B) the conviction is reversed, set aside, or otherwise rendered nugatory.

The Department of Education has also released a Student Aid Eligibilty Worksheet for folks to use to see whether or not they are eligible for Federal Aid based on their criminal history.

I tell all of my Travis County clients attending one of the many universities and colleges in Austin about these provisions, and why it is even more imperative that we find a creative way (such as pre-trial diversion) to try to get their case dismissed, if at all possible.  Fortunately, I've generally found the prosecutors in Austin to be at least willing to listen to my equitable arguments as to why my client should not be convicted of a simple possession case (yes, even if they may in fact be guilty).

Supreme Court Turns Down Mandatory Minimum Case

The U.S. Supreme Court denied cert in Angelos v. U.S. today, effectively affirming this defendant’s 55 year sentence for being set up by the government to sell marijuana, and, according to the snitch who was deal-making for his own liberty, carried a gun in an ankle holster.

Three controlled buys of 8 ounces of marijuana, and some not-so-reliable testimony about whether you carried a weapon (but did not use or exhibit it) equals fifty five years in prison on this particular occasion.

Originally offered sixteen years in the federal penitentiary if he plead guilty to the offense, Angelos turned the deal down because he insisted that he had not carried the weapon. (That’s why the snitch testimony is an important factor here – there’s good reason to disbelieve any paid testimony of a Government witness.)

By exercising his constitutional right to dispute this aggravating factor, Angelos rolled the dice and lost in a big way. I’m sure this was in part because the original 16 year prison offer was ridiculously high, even if he were guilty exactly as accused.

A defendant indicted on a state charge in Austin, Texas under the same set of facts, would likely be facing a State Jail Felony charge, where his maximum punishment would be five years (day-for-day, no parole) in a state jail facility. I’m guessing, obviously, but the offer would probably be for probation. (There is some chance a Travis County prosecutor might try to enhance it to a Third Degree Felony, based on the weapon, which would double the maximum to ten years, but then leave open a possibility of paroling from TDCJ. Again, I think probation would be a likely outcome.)

And the stark contrast with the punishment range under Texas rather than Federal law is even more surprising, given that Texas has notoriously high punishment ranges for marijuana and controlled substance offenses. In most states, a defendant in Angelos’ situation would be facing substantially less time than here in Texas.

For readers that have gotten this far, but are still reacting to this story with a “do the crime – do the time – and to heck with him” mentality?... Please read this Progressive article humanizing Weldon Angelos, then get back to me.

You have to know something is very wrong, when the sentencing judge decries the penalty he must give a defendant, and goes so far as to list much lower maximum sentences available in other types of federal cases:

Hijacking an airplane: 25 years

Second-degree murder: 14 years

Kidnapping: 13 years

Rape of a 10-year-old: 11 years

Remember, we are talking about 24 ounces of marijuana here…

Texas Medical Marijuana Patients Should Be So Lucky

Mark Katz posts about a recent successful medical marijuana defense case, based on these provisions in Maryland’s marijuana statute:

(i) In a prosecution for the use or possession of marijuana, the defendant may introduce and the court shall consider as a mitigating factor any evidence of medical necessity.

(ii) Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of this subsection, if the court finds that the person used or possessed marijuana because of medical necessity, on conviction of a violation of this section, the maximum penalty that the court may impose on the person is a fine not exceeding $100." Md. Code, Crim. Law art. § 5-601(c)(3).

In Texas, there is no equivalent protection for legitimate marijuana patients. Having written recently about whether drug policy reformers should press for complete victory, or possibly accept incremental change in our laws, I am sensitive to the need for fighting the drug warriors on multiple fronts.

The last Texas legislature declined to reduce the criminalization of less than an ounce of marijuana to a Class C offense (the equivalent of a speeding ticket). I do somewhat fear that if Texas passed a medical marijuana affirmative defense, as Maryland has, that it might slow down the total-decriminalization process.

Also, Katz’ post points out the financial cost to the patient in mounting such a defense:

Mounting the best medical marijuana defense will ordinarily be costly, calling for the testimony or written opinion of the defendant's treating physician (or an evaluating physician if the defendant had no personal physician), and sometimes the testimony or written opinion of a medical marijuana expert if the treating physician lacks sufficient knowledge about marijuana's medicinal relevance to the defendant, or refuses to provide a medical marijuana opinion.

So, would an affirmative defense for medical marijuana patients in Texas be a step in the right direction?

Is a $500 Fine Too High For Crime?

Well, yes, it is, when it is imposed automatically before conviction.

Matt Hanley of the Beacon News asks “Is a $500 fine too high for crime?

A lawsuit has been filed by an Aurora resident challenging the city's seizure policy.

The suit hopes to change the city's policy, which allows police to seize the vehicles of people charged with certain weapons, drugs or prostitution offenses.

Aurora resident Edward Hermesdorf, 19, filed suit this month, after being stopped by police in September for a seat-belt violation. He was charged with having no valid driver's license and no insurance, but police found that his passenger was in possession of marijuana.

So, what did they do with Edward’s car? You know, the guy whose passenger was apparently charged with a minor marijuana offense?

Following city ordinance, Hermesdorf's car was seized by police. He had to pay a $500 city fine, plus towing costs.

Lots of folks out there don’t know about our onerous civil forfeiture laws, which basically allow confiscation of your property when you are charged with a drug offense. Yes, that’s “charged with”, not “convicted of”.

In Austin, it can take several months for a misdemeanor marijuana charge to be resolved, even in a case like this one where a dismissal is likely? (Why do I say it’s likely? Based on the limited facts presented, it sounds like it will be difficult for the state to prove that the driver was in possession of the dope.)

Anyone out there think they’d be forced to go pay the $500 plus towing immediately to get their car back? Bear in mind, as you bicycle around town, those overnight fees at the storage yard are going to add up if you wait for your case to be resolved.

So, you answer the writer’s question…is $500 (plus towing) too high a price to pay for crime?

Updating the Crack/Powder Cocaine Sentencing Review

The Sentencing Project updates last week’s Sentencing Commission hearings on reforming the harsh penalties created by the disparity in Federal law for crack vs. powder cocaine. Although United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta testified that the differences were reasonable…

A number of Commissioners also expressed concern that the current crack cocaine law was ineffective in targeting the upper echelon of drug distributors. According to Acosta’s own testimony, the highest level cocaine trafficking takes place almost exclusively in the powder form.

This was affirmed by Joseph Rannazzisi of the Drug Enforcement Administration, who noted that crack cocaine sellers are at the lowest end of the powder cocaine distribution chain, and that it is his experience, that crack is primarily produced and sold in very small quantities.

Read the whole update here.

"Decriminalize" not "Legalize"

Pete Guthier blogging from the Students for Sensible Drug Policy Conference quotes Eric Sterling’s presentation:

Many reformers have a problem with the word "decriminalization." However, from his perspective, the definition of decriminalization has potentially undergone some change.

Original: Decriminalization means a minor sanction, users won't be punished by we'll still go after the traffickers. That doesn't make sense.

However, new thought:

Using the word "legalization" puts the burden on the legalizer to define how that will be accomplished.

But new version of "decriminalization" puts burden of proof on the status quo to answer: Why should the state punish drug use? What in the conduct of drug users merits punishment?

I’ve tried to make the same point myself several times, most recently, in the last paragraph of this post. Every day at work in Austin, as a practicing criminal defense lawyer I know that the language we use makes a big difference when we are trying to persuade…

The Crack / Powder Cocaine Sentencing Disparity and a Creative Solution...

Sentencing Law and Policy links to the submitted testimony of several witnesses at next week’s congressional hearing on the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentencing. Berman also points us to the statement of Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, the largest law enforcement labor organization in the United States, who argues that he knows how to fix the problem.

I read Canterbury’s entire statement, and urge you to do so as well (I can’t reprint the whole thing here, of course, but welcome readers to make sure that my use of ellipses – “…” – aren’t an attempt by me to distort what he is saying).

Most of it is fairly shocking on its face, but I can’t resist the urge to comment:

Measures like the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988 put stiffer penalties into place for those who would bring the poison of drugs and violence into our neighborhoods and communities. In the experience of the FOP, tougher penalties work. They worked in the 1980s and 1990s and were a very significant factor in the ability of law enforcement to counter the “crack” explosion…

OK, so part of his thesis is the tired refrain, “What we’ve been doing in the 80’s and 90’s has been working so well…” Let’s see if he can manage to stick to that story.

Mandatory minimum sentences… mean longer sentences for the worst offenders.

Um, in the sense that mandatory minimum sentences mean longer sentences for all offenders, I suppose he is technically correct. Of course, those longer minimum mandatory sentences come down on the “least of the offenders” as well, so his statement, while arguably true, is misleading at best.

The Commission’s findings in the 1997 report also stated that crack cocaine is… particularly accessible to the most vulnerable members of our society… As a result, Federal sentencing policy must reflect the greater dangers associated with crack and impose correspondingly greater punishments.

If this isn’t shocking on its face, please reread this last quote again. Outloud. Then read it to a friend and ask them their reaction to it.

The Fraternal Order of Police would support increasing the penalties for offenses involving powder cocaine through a reduction in the quantity of powder necessary to trigger the 5- and 10-year mandatory minimum sentences, thereby decreasing the gap between the two similar offenses and addressing the concerns of those who question the current ratio without depriving law enforcement with the tools they need to control the possession, use, and sale of powder cocaine.

The 5-year mandatory minimum sentence can be triggered by 5 grams of crack cocaine. How much is 5 grams of something? 5 Sweet-and-Low packets worth of cocaine is 5 grams. So his solution to the disparity problem…increase the penalties for powder, rather than decreasing them for crack! So the disparity is a problem, one best solved by even more prison building.

This year alone, more than 5.5 million Americans will use cocaine, and 872,000 will try it for the first time. Similarly, 1.4 million Americans will use crack cocaine and 230,000 will try it for the first time. These are very disturbing numbers. And despite indications that cocaine production has stabilized since 2002, U.S. law enforcement authorities seized 196 metric tons of cocaine in 2005—a five year high.

But wait a minute… didn’t you start off by telling us that what we’ve been doing for thirty years plus has been such a rousing success? Now you’re telling us that cocaine use has either stabilized or increased. So when you want to brag about the great job you’re doing, then “things are getting better”. But when it comes time for the scare tactics and the pleas for more funding, then “things are staying the same or getting worse”.

The Safety of Marijuana

As usual, Pete Guthier at DrugWarrant digs up the facts about marijuana and its comparative lack of dangers to other substances, both legal and controlled.

Noting that the Drug Czar’s blog trumpets the need to redouble its efforts (and no doubt its funding) to go after “the non medical use of prescription drugs”, Pete decided to find the actual numbers behind the recent Florida Autopsy report that the Drug Czar was reporting on. Reproducing his table in part:

Drug Tracked

Cause of Death

Cocaine

348

Methadone

312

Alprazolam

194

Oxycodone

185

Ethyl Alcohol

160

Morphine

106

Hydrocodone

106

Other Benzodiazepine

62

Diazepam

59

Fentanyl

51

Propoxyphene

38

Carisoprodol/Meprobamate

36

Heroin

29

Methamphetamine

9

Amphetamine

3

MDMA

2

CANNABINOIDS

0

The highlights? Cocaine, 349 deaths; Alcohol, 160 deaths, Heroin, 29 deaths…

Marijuana (cannibinoids): Zero Deaths Caused.

With Xanax (Alprazolam) coming in at number three, shouldn’t we start considering prison for folks with panic attacks and anxiety disorders?   And look at Soma (Carisoprodol/Meprobamate) coming in ahead of Heroin and Ecstasy combined. Sounds to me like the Drug Czar may advise us soon to start saving up tax dollars to build more prisons.

Legalizing Nature

Jordan Smith’s Austin Chronicle column this week, recently renamed from “Weed Watch” to “Reefer Madness”, reports on Bertha Madras’ recent press conference in Austin, Texas. (Madras is the deputy director for demand reduction at the ONDCP.)

Madras misquoted a study by Mount Sinai School of Medicine professor Yasmin Hurd, published in July in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology, as proof of the gateway theory for saying rats exposed to marijuana were twice as likely to use heroin later as adults. In fact, Smith points out, they become addicted at the same rate, although the ones exposed to THC at an earlier time did use somewhat larger amounts.

I looked for the study itself, and in doing so ran across this interesting tidbit about the researcher:

Hurd feels that softening the law against marijuana at this point would be "ridiculous", given the number of unknowns about its effects. She adds that two other drugs that also stimulate opioid cells, and could therefore also feasibly cause a gateway effect, are nicotine and alcohol. "If we turned back the clock with the knowledge we have now, these two drugs would never have been legalized," Hurd says. [Emphasis Mine]

Apparently Hurd remembers back fondly on the time when everything was illegal, and we had to ask our government to “legalize” bread and water and other items for us to use. 

On perhaps a more serious note, I will end with my frequent plea that we use the term “decriminalize” not “legalize” when talking about drug policy reform. This shows just one more reason: it properly focuses the debate on the fact that the criminalization movement is really the new kid in town.

Drug Convictions and Student Aid

Julie Ross writes a piece in the SMU Daily Campus paper today entitled “Smoke Pot, Get Caught, Lose College Funding”:

This ban unjustly continues to penalize students with drug convictions. Under this ban even a single, minor drug charge or violation (including possession of drug paraphernalia) will prevent a student from receiving financial aid for college. In other words, that funky Phish bong you picked up at Pipe Dream could cost you more than just retail.

She quotes Brandon Conaway writing for the student newspaper for the University of Northern Iowa’s reaction to this:

It may seem justified that breaking the law can result in a loss of federal aid. However, the law only applies to drug convictions. This means that a convicted murderer or rapist can still get financial aid, while someone convicted of misdemeanor possession of marijuana cannot. There is also no conclusive proof that the provision deters drug use – the major reason the provision was implemented in the first place.

They are both right, of course, to protest this onerous “collateral consequence” of what might otherwise be a “minor” drug conviction. This is just one of the reasons I try to steer my University of Texas at Austin clients arrested for marijuana offenses into the Travis County Pre-Trial Diversion program, which when successfully completed leads to a dismissal and eligibility for an expunction.

Even misdemeanor drug offenses needed to be handled carefully. The consequences often go well beyond whatever conditions the judge orders, even if it’s “just probation”.

More on Marijuana Prohibition

John Tierney’s New York Times opinion column today (available, unfortunately, only to Times-Select subscribers) addresses some of the political problems that the Drug War crusaders have had with libertarian voters and others. 

Basically there’s a fundamental problem with being both anti-Big Government, and supporting our current drug policy. Also, it’s hard to shout “leave it up to local control”, when local support is overwhelmingly in favor of issues like medical marijuana, but Washington pols want to override state laws.

Focusing on marijuana prohibition (“the chief priority of the current drug czar”), Tierney also addresses some of the fear mongering that Drug War supporters continually engage in, by providing us with some basic facts:

When Californians approved one of the first medical marijuana laws, in 1996, drug warriors were so convinced it would lead to a catastrophic spike in illegal use by teenagers that they sponsored a study to document the damage. But there was no catastrophe: after the law, marijuana use by teenagers actually declined in California.

In the decade since, as the Marijuana Policy Project documented in a recent study, popular support for legalized medical marijuana has increased in California and in virtually every other state with a similar law. Last year it was favored by 78 percent of respondents in a Gallup poll.

There’s no need for those of us who are ashamed of, embarrassed by, and angry with our current moronic policy of wasting tax dollars imprisoning marijuana users to remain quiet. We are in the majority. Shout it from the rooftops if you have to: Decriminalize Marijuana!

Drug Czar: "Users Need Treatment" (Not Jail?)

If someone admits to committing a murder last year, or even 30 years ago, we don’t just get them “treatment”…the government indicts them and tries to imprison them. That makes complete sense, of course, because not only is there no statute of limitations for murder, there’s no excuse for it either. (My hypothetical here assumes murder, not a lesser included like manslaughter, and assumes the absence of self defense, etc.)

I’ve always found it odd then, that we have a dual system of imprisoning some drug users, while seeking treatment for others. Doesn’t the government frequently argue (in court) that the behavior of using the illegal drugs is worth punishing?

Which brings me to today’s quote from the Drug Czar’s blog. It comes from ONDCP’s Deputy Director for Demand Reduction, Dr. Bertha Madras, who was asked:

Why can't drug addicts just go straight to a local treatment center for help?

Dr. Madras: Only a small minority of addicts willingly seek treatment on their own.  The vast majority do not seek treatment because they don't think they have a problem.  They are unaware, in denial or ambivalent about seeking help. 

She’s talking about this in the context of the procedures by which doctors can now bill Medicaid for drug and alcohol screening and intervention, even if that was not why the patient came to see them. But isn’t her statement at least implicitly a rejection of the notion that drug users should be jailed in the first place?

I guess it’s OK to use marijuana, cocaine or what have you, as long as you run into a doctor before you run into a cop…

Sanjay Gupta Forced To Smoke Marijuana?

Sanjay Gupta writes an article in Time this week entitled “Why I Would Vote No On Pot”. After stating his thesis that marijuana isn’t very good for you, he goes on:

True, there are health benefits for some patients. Several recent studies, including a new one from the Scripps Research Institute, show that THC, the chemical in marijuana responsible for the high, can help slow the progress of Alzheimer's disease. (In fact, it seems to block the formation of disease-causing plaques better than several mainstream drugs.)

Other studies have shown THC to be a very effective antinausea treatment for people--cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, for example--for whom conventional medications aren't working. And medical cannabis has shown promise relieving pain in patients with multiple sclerosis and reducing intraocular pressure in glaucoma patients.

Wow. That’s actually quite a list of accomplishments from the medical perspective. Alzeheimer’s, cancer, glaucoma and MS patients could benefit from it, but the good doctor still wants to vote “no” because the Colorado and Nevada initiatives “would legalize marijuana irrespective of any medical condition”.

Drug Policy Reformers, please note: we need to always use the word “decriminalize” instead of “legalize” when talking about the subject. Dr. Gupta has caught a classic case of “missing the point”.

Voting “No on Pot”, as Dr. Gupta calls it, means more tax dollars spent incarcerating casual marijuana users. That’s it, end of story. Neither initiative will force Dr. Gupta or anyone else to use marijuana.

And as far as ignoring the reality of imprisoning doctors and their patients for choosing to prescribe and use marijuana for legitimate medical reasons, perhaps Dr. Gupta needs to read this post about the AMA’s position on medical marijuana. Jailing and imprisoning those truly in medical need goes beyond deliberately ignoring what the decriminalization movement is about: it is simply cruel and capricious.  

Should Defense Lawyers Encourage Drug Court Participation?

Following up on my last post regarding Steven Erickson’s critique of Drug Courts, let’s look at another part of his paper “The Drug Court Fraud” and his objections:

By their very design, drug courts diminish the zealous advocacy role of defense counsel by encouraging a “treatment team” approach to drug offenders. Thus, rather than defending clients, defense attorneys are supposed to assist the court into coercing defendants into participation and reporting to the “team” whether the client has made progress on their sobriety. Besides the obvious dismissal of the attorney-client privilege, such approaches effectively eliminate the role of defense counsel as traditionally understood for centuries in American jurisprudence.

Wow. I know this is harsh, but I’ve rarely seen such hogwash from a self proclaimed expert.

First, participation in Drug Courts is 100% voluntary. Folks arrested for controlled substance violations are always free to defend themselves in criminal court. That the government threatens addicts with incarceration if they don’t enter treatment might properly be labeled coercive, but then again, that comes from the prosecutor not the defense lawyer.

Second, there is no abrogation of the attorney client privilege that I have ever seen involved in Drug Court programs. My experience is limited to the Travis County SHORT program, but I’d like to know exactly what Erickson thinks he is talking about here.

While there’s no Doctor-Patient privilege in criminal cases in Texas, the rule reads (in part):

RULE 509. PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE

(b) Limited Privilege in Criminal Proceedings. There is no physician-patient privilege in criminal proceedings. However, a communication to any person involved in the treatment or examination of alcohol or drug abuse by a person being treated voluntarily or being examined for admission to treatment for alcohol or drug abuse is not admissible in a criminal proceeding.

Anything my client says in Drug Court regarding prior drug use is specifically made inadmissible by statute under Texas law, and I’d bet there is a similar rule in most other states. Public policy demands that users be allowed to seek treatment, without worrying that what they say will be used against them. Perhaps Erickson is unaware of this rule, despite the J.D. after his name.

Finally, yes, my role as counselor-at-law sometimes becomes just counselor when I am helping those accused of possessing various illegal substances. But I can assure you, almost all of my Austin clients are thrilled to know that there is at least the potential there to keep them out of felony court all together. After all, we can always do it the old fashioned way: go fight the case in district court.

(Also read Kim Hunt's post at Corrections Sentencing for more analysis of Erickson's paper.)

Faulty Analysis Labels Drug Courts As Fraudulent

Crime and Consequences has a guest post written by Steven K. Erickson entitled “The Drug Court Fraud”. Erickson correctly criticizes the methodology used to boost statistics about the efficacy of drug courts. Some of the valid points he makes in his paper are that studies often leave out the initial drop out rate when publishing success statistics, that entry into drug courts is non-random, and that short follow up periods leave us without vitally important long term efficacy rates for these programs.

As I said, these are all valid points, when we are talking about whether or not there is a scientifically proven cause and effect between drug courts and long term sobriety.  But Erickson continues:

Completion rates for many drug court studies range form 25 to 66 percent. Thus, up to 2/3 of the initial participants do not complete treatment. If this is success, I’d hate to see what failure is.

We already know what failure is, Dr. Erickson. It’s currently our only alternative to drug courts in most places: long term expensive incarceration of addicts.

So while you make admittedly valid criticisms of methodology, don’t forget that most of modern medicine is based on epidemiological studies, which as a whole suffer from many of the same flaws. Epidemiology never proves causation. And yet, in some cases it is the only available method of study.

And even if drug courts only keep 10% of controlled substance offenders out of our prison system, they are a massive success. At 33% we ought to be dancing in the streets. You don’t have to read too many stories about Drug Court successes to know they are well worth it.

Travis County Drug Court (S.H.O.R.T.)

For those charged in Austin with a Felony level offense possession of a controlled substance, there is often the opportunity to stay out of district court, and to have the case dismissed, if you qualify for and complete the Travis County Drug Diversion / S.H.O.R.T. program. (S.H.O.R.T. stands for System of Healthy Options for Release and Transition.)

For those seeking to learn about this program, let me tell you this: the SHORT program is no cakewalk. I often tell prospective clients that the one year they will spend completing the SHORT program is much tougher than one year of felony probation. Of course, the catch is this:

(1) you don’t get just one year of probation for a felony offense in Texas, because the minimum is two years, and many folks get somewhere between five and ten years of probation for felony drug offenses. And…

(2) probation stays on your record. If it’s deferred probation, you may be eligible for a motion for non-disclosure, but never an expunction. If you successfully complete SHORT, you can apply for an expunction, which completely wipes the arrest off of your record.

So while it may be true that SHORT is more difficult to complete than even a probation; but it’s still well worth it. When I hear clients tell me that some lawyer told them not to bother with the program, I always think that lawyer is trying to get himself a client, rather than help the person the best way they know how.

The Admission criteria for SHORT are listed here.

Marijuana vs. Alcohol: Which is Harmful?

Mason Tvert, campaign director for Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER), lists several reasons to support drug policy reform in this editorial in the Rocky Mountain News:

Alcohol is deadly; marijuana is not. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 20,000 Americans die every year as the direct result of alcohol consumption. The number for marijuana is zero. In addition, alcohol overdose deaths are not just possible, but an all-too-frequent occurrence…

Iowa Guy weighs in with a similar theme (also in relation to Colorado’s Amendment 44):

Studies have repeatedly shown that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol. Thousands of people every year are killed, directly or indirectly, by alcohol abuse. Alcohol overdose kills hundreds. Spousal abuse is almost always linked to alcohol. Drunken driving is a huge problem.

On the other hand, there has never been a single death from marijuana overdose. Users do not become violent. Marijuana is not addictive.

Juliet Samuel writes a thoughtful op-ed in the Harvard Crimson on the inequities that come from punishing marijuana use by University students depending on the current political climate. Her piece prompts a letter to the editor by Robert Sharpe:

Unlike alcohol, marijuana has never been shown to have caused an overdose death, nor does it share the addictive properties of tobacco. The short-term health effects of marijuana are inconsequential compared to the long-term effects of criminal records.

It’s just as true in Austin (where the University of Texas got its number one party school ranking by coming in first for hard liquor use and third for beer consumption) as it is everywhere else: much more trouble is caused by the use of alcohol than the use of marijuana. The trouble that marijuana “causes” in Travis County is entirely due to its criminalization, rather than to its actual consumption.

Update: Marijuana vs. Alcohol Deaths

The Meaning of Decriminalization: Don't Imprison Addicts

I’m always wary about commenting on other people’s personal tragedies, but the confused logic of a recent editorial in the Denver Post cries out for critical thought.  Jim Spencer (no relation) talks of his brother’s untimely demise at the hands of alcoholism and heroin use, and starts his piece with this quote: 

We buried my brother earlier this year on his 56th birthday, roughly 41 years after I watched him take his first drink.  I don't recall seeing my brother smoke pot on his way to chronic alcoholism, heroin addiction and a compulsion for painkillers that once led him to steal a prescription pad from our family doctor.  Though he probably smoked some dope, addiction helped kill my brother, not any single kind of drug.  

The Op-Ed piece goes on to outline the writer’s opposition to Colorado’s Amendment 44, which would decriminalize small amounts of marijuana possession for adults 21 and over.

 

But, let’s take a closer look at that initial statement of facts.  Doesn’t it argue against the “gateway theory” that we hear espoused (on our dime) by the Drug Czar every day?

 

Addiction comes in many forms, and is often either physically or psychologically lethal.  But the real question is this: should we solve that problem by incarcerating the addict?  That's what our current drug policy mandates.

Local, State and National Marijuana News

The Las Vegas Review-Journal editorializes on the impropriety of the Drug Czar’s use of taxpayer money to campaign against Nevada’s upcoming marijuana decriminalization initiative.

The hypocrisy of politicians who claim to be against big government and federal intervention on matters of local interest often arises when they support the so called War on Drugs. The Dallas Morning News reprints Ryan Sager’s column which mentions the locally popular medical marijuana movement as an example of this.

Lianne Hart of the Los Angeles Times writes an article about a small Arkansas town’s efforts to decriminalize marijuana.

Kanrei blogs about the Canadian military stumbling upon ten foot marijuana plants in Afghanistan.

And finally, while I suppose I wouldn’t mind being known as Austin’s “Marijuana Lawyer”, this news item prompts me to say I can only take payment in the form of cash, check or credit card.

Most Blogged Marijuana Story of the Week