The U.S. Sentencing Commission has published the results of a survey of more than 600 federal judges on sentencing laws.

Marcia Coyle at the National Law Journal reports on the findings.

The 639 judges who responded had sentenced 116,183 offenders, or 79 percent of those sentenced during fiscal 2008 and 2009.

Sixty-two percent of the judges said the mandatory minimums that they were required to impose were too high, particularly for crack cocaine (76 percent), receipt of child pornography (71 percent) and marijuana (54 percent). However, strong majorities believed the sentencing guideline ranges for most federal offenses were appropriate, with the exception again of those for crack cocaine, marijuana, and the possession and receipt of child pornography, which they said were too high.

Also, 75 percent of the judges preferred the current system of advisory sentencing guidelines over mandatory ones. And 68 percent said "victims should not have the opportunity to comment on the pre-sentence report before sentencing." I agree.

The U.S. spent more than $5 billion to fight coca production in Colombia over the past decade. The result: Growers have ramped up production in Peru.

When antinarcotics forces succeed in one place — as they recently have in Colombia, which has received more than $5 billion in American aid this decade — cultivation shifts to other corners of the Andes.

Eradication efforts in Peru and Bolivia in the 90's resulted in a shift by growers to Colombia. Now that efforts in Colombia have had success, growers have just moved back to Peru. That's the problem with a supply-oriented policy.

“Washington’s policy of supply-oriented intervention inevitably improves the efficiencies and entrepreneurial skills of traffickers,” said Paul Gootenberg, who wrote the book “Andean Cocaine.”

[More...]

The U.S. Sentencing Commission held a hearing yesterday on mandatory minimum sentences. Here is the prepared testimony outlining the position of the Department of Justice which has implemented a task force to study the laws.

Bottom line: DOJ is willing to make some adjustments, mostly minor:

Our study has led us to the conclusion that in an era of advisory guidelines, mandatory minimum sentencing statutes remain important to promote the goals of sentencing and public safety. At the same time, we recognize that some reforms of existing mandatory minimum sentencing statutes are needed and that consideration of some new modest mandatory minimum sentencing statutes is appropriate.

[More...]

U.S. District Court Judge Jack Weinstein is on a mission. It's not his first. He frequently fights what he calls "the unnecessary cruelty of the law.”

Judge Weinstein was in the news today for his latest crusade which has lasted three years, finding ways to avoid imposing a five year mandatory minimum sentence for a defendant convicted of receiving child p*rn on his computer.

Judge Weinstein, who sits in the United States District Court in Brooklyn, has twice thrown out convictions that would have ensured that the man spend at least five years behind bars. He has pledged to break protocol and inform the next jury about the mandatory prison sentence that the charges carry. And he recently declared that the man, who is awaiting a new trial, did not need an electronic ankle bracelet because he posed “no risk to society.”

[More...]

The media continues to tout the Obama Administration's new drug control policy, to be released today, as a big progressive change that favors treatment over enforcement.

As I wrote last week, that's only half the story. The new policy (available here in its last draft form) also strongly opposes the legalization of marijuana, contains yet more money for the war on drugs and law and border enforcement, and urges states to adopt a zero tolerance policy for driving with any amount of an illegal controlled substance in one's system. (Marijuana stays in one's system for about 30 days. You can see where this is headed.) The policy also states its intention to go after indoor marijuana grows and ramp up forfeitures of cash by treating large amounts as if it were drugs. It also urges health care providers to ask patients more intrusive questions about drug use.

Do we need more money for treatment and prevention? Of course. But why does it always have to be accompanied by ratcheting up the war on drugs with more of the same ill-advised enforcement policies?

Newsweek has a copy of the March, 2010 draft of the much delayed National Drug Control Strategy (available here.) It makes a strong statement against legalizing marijuana.

Keeping drugs illegal reduces their availability and lessens willingness to use them. That is why this Administration firmly opposes the legalization of marijuana or any other illicit drug. Legalizing drugs would increase accessibility and encourage promotion and acceptance of use. Diagnostic, laboratory, clinical, and epidemiological studies clearly indicate that marijuana use is associated with dependence, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and cognitive impairment, among other negative effects , and legalization would only exacerbate these problems. (my emphasis.)

[More...]

Reuters reports the marijuana growers in Humboldt County fear the Tax and Spend movement because if pot becomes legal, they may lose their position at the top of the illegal grow market as others move in, including tobacco companies.

At least one tobacco company, Reynolds American, says it has no intention of doing so. In other words, there are no plans for "Marlboro Green."

Are the fears justified? No. Just because California votes to legalize possession or cultivation for personal use, it doesn't follow that Congress will pass a law allowing unfettered cultivation. It hasn't even exempted medical marijuana patients from federal prosecution in states where their conduct is lawful. Regardless of what happens in California, the D.E.A. is going to ratchet up grower busts, particularly commercial ones, not look the other way. [More...]

It's 4/20 day, also known as Marijuana Freedom Day, celebrated around the world by marijuana users and those who want to see the end to criminalization of its use.

Also today, NORML launches a new advertisement for 4/20 on Times Square’s largest electronic billboard calling out New York City politicians and law enforcement for having one of the highest—and most racially disparate—cannabis arrest rates in the United States. The advertisement will run 18 times a day until late May, and will be seen by an expected 1.5 million Times Square visitors.

California will be front and center this year, as marijuana legalization will be on the ballot. If you'd like to help them, go on over to TaxCanabis and make a donation.

The War on Drugs is a failure. Let's bring it to an end.

Gil Kerlikowski, Obama's Drug Czar, testified Wednesday before the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform. His prepared statement is here. The hearing was titled, "ONDCP's Fiscal Year 2011 National Drug Control Budget: Are We Still Funding a War on Drugs?"

Here's the statement of Ethan Nadelman, Executive Director, Drug Policy Alliance.

Last May, Kerlikowski also advocated a change in the war on drugs, which has been a failure. At Thursday's hearing, he stressed treatment over incarceration.

The problem? Kerlikowski's new policy looks too much like the old one. [More...]

A new report, Policing for Profit, has been released by the Institute of Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm. (Html link here.)

Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture is the most comprehensive national study to examine the use and abuse of civil asset forfeiture and the first study to grade the civil forfeiture laws of all 50 states and the federal government.

Under state and federal civil asset forfeiture laws, law enforcement agencies can seize and keep property suspected of involvement in criminal activity. Unlike criminal asset forfeiture, with civil forfeiture, a property owner need not be found guilty of a crime—or even charged—to
permanently lose her cash, car, home or other property.

Vanita Gupta of the ACLU and Scott Bullock, a co-author of the report, write at HuffPo and the ACLU blog that it's time to end the abusive practices. [More...]

Philadelphia is making a big change in its marijuana prosecution policy. It will no longer charge adults possessing small amounts of pot with a crime. Rather, they will be charged with a "summary offense" that carries a fine and has no effect on a criminal record.

Under a policy to take effect later this month, prosecutors will charge such cases as summary offenses rather than as misdemeanors. People arrested with up to 30 grams of the drug - slightly more than an ounce - may have to pay a fine but face no risk of a criminal record.

"We have to be smart on crime," said District Attorney Seth Williams, who took office in January. "We can't declare a war on drugs by going after the kid who's smoking a joint on 55th Street. We have to go after the large traffickers."

Two justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, including Justice Seamus P. McCaffery, a former homicide detective, have been working with the D.A. on the new policy. The cops aren't happy. [More...]

The petition signatures have been counted and certified in California. Voters in November will decide whether to legalize recreational use of marijuana.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen certified that the petitions seeking to place the question on the ballot had more than 433,971 valid voter signatures, the minimum number needed to qualify.

If approved, the initiative would allow those 21 years and older to possess up to one ounce of marijuana, enough to roll several marijuana cigarettes. Residents also could cultivate the plant in limited quantities.

If passed, California will be the first state in the nation to legalize marijuana. Local governments would then decide whether to allow and tax marijuana sales.