Harsh New Drug Bill About to Be Introduced in House 11/21/03

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/312/harsh.shtml

One of Congress's staunchest drug warriors, Rep. Mark Souder, is at it again. The Indiana Republican best known for authoring the Higher Education Act's anti-drug provision is about to introduce legislation that would jam federal prisons even more full of drug offenders. The bill, called with Orwellian flair the "Drug Sentencing Reform Act," is set to be introduced within the next two weeks, and Souder is looking for cosponsors, reported the Drug Policy Alliance (http://www.drugpolicy.org), which has two staffers working Capitol Hill full-time and which is organizing to kill the bill.
According to an explanation of the bill provided in a Souder e-mail to his colleagues his legislation would:

• Expand the purview of the Feeney Amendment, which restricts federal judges' ability to reduce sentences, to include drug offenses.
• Mandate random drug testing for almost all federal parolees and probationers, not just drug offenders or people suspected of having substance abuse problems.
• Direct the US Sentencing Commission to no longer allow lower sentences for nonviolent drug offenders who have certain mitigating circumstances (such as being addicted to drugs) or who lack previous criminal records.
• Create harsh new penalties for growing "high-potency" mar1juana.

"This was a little holiday surprise," said Bill Piper, legislative director at DPA's Washington office, "and it's not a very pleasant one. This bill is overwhelmingly bad," he told DRCNet, "it's all sentencing and no reform. This bill continues a trend of tying the hands of judges and preventing them from reducing sentences for drug offenders. Not only will more people go to prison for longer stays, the taxpayers will have to pay for it."

The sentencing provisions are not the only provisions that will leave taxpayers clutching their wallets, Piper said. "The mandatory drug testing provision will also cost," he said. "Right now, judges have discretion on ordering testing, and they usually only impose a drug testing condition on parolees who have drug charges or a substance abuse problem, but this bill would require everyone on supervised release to have drug tests, even if there is no reason to believe they might be using drugs. It costs money to test every single federal parolee or probationer," Piper explained.

And while corrections departments in the states are moving to rein in the practice of returning parolees to prison for "administrative" violations such as failing a drug test (see California newsbrief this issue), federal drug testing will be used to re-imprison thousands of nonviolent drug offenders for years, Piper added. There is an exception for some federal misdemeanors or if prosecutors move to waive drug testing. "When is that going to happen?" Piper asked. "The states are trying to fix this problem, but Souder is moving in the opposite direction."

And then there's Souder's continuing war on mar1juana. Long a loud opponent of medical mar1juana, Souder has crafted a "high-potency" pot provision seemingly designed to be used against medical mar1juana grows in states where the practice is legal. According to the bill's draft, mar1juana growing offenders will be sentenced not just on the weight of the drug but according to its potency. Souder's bill creates three classes of high potency pot, between 6 and 13% THC, 13-25% THC, and greater than 25% THC.

The changes in sentencing for high-potency growers would be dramatic under the Souder bill. For instance, if someone grew 50 plants in California as part of a medical mar1juana program, under current law he could be sentenced to up to 20 years in federal prison. Under the Souder bill, the same grower would face a mandatory minimum 5-year sentence and a maximum 40-year sentence.

"This is really about the cultural war on mar1juana," said Piper. "They know they're losing the battle in terms of public support for the decriminalization and legalization of mar1juana. Both Souder and John Walters like to talk about 'super-pot,' not your father's pot, this dangerous high-potency stuff. They also want to go after the pot co-ops, and it's easier to say they're going after dangerous, high-potency mar1juana than it is for them to argue that we need increased mar1juana penalties across the board."

Medical mar1juana users smoke mar1juana with high THC concentrations because it works better for them, said Piper. "It is ironic that Souder would discourage people from using stronger mar1juana. People using more potent pot smoke less, and that's good for their health. Souder is encouraging people to grow and smoke low-quality pot, which means mar1juana smokers will just smoke more."

That provision also provoked the mar1juana Policy Project (http://www.mpp.org) to jump in to oppose the bill. "This bill is a direct threat to the health of patients and to the caregivers and loved ones who assist them," said Steve Fox, MPP director of government relations. "Souder should call his bill the Lung Disease Promotion Act of 2003. The only serious health risks associated with mar1juana use involve lung problems like bronchitis caused by the tars in smoke, and research has shown that users of higher-THC mar1juana inhale less of those contaminants."

While Souder scurries around seeking cosponsors, DPA is gearing up to ensure that he finds few or none. "We're doing a whole bunch of things to blunt this bill," said Piper. "We're encouraging people to call their representatives and tell them not to cosponsor, we've contacted congressional offices with the same message, we've faxed every congressional office a one-page analysis, and we're working to get media around so people are too embarrassed to become cosponsors," he explained.
Visit http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/SouderEmail.pdf to view a copy of the Souder e-mail.

 

And the hits just keep on coming.

 

No, this is an article about the bill that Souder is trying to pass. If you care to defend the drug war, please go ahead, but the fact remains that Souder is going to try to get this bill passed just as he has pushed other draconian drug laws in the past. He is the guy who took federal financial aid away from students caught violating drug laws. Rapists, burglers, and armed robbers can get financial aid, but a kid caught with a joint can't.

What should be objective is our drug policy.

 

Once again, you chime in with a nonsensical argument that belies logic and reason. You claim that you would like there to be no drug laws and go on to say that if there ARE drug laws, they should be as draconian as possible. You try to argue that giving the drug laws "bite" is the most appropriate way to "fight drugs." Your argument is lacking in that no matter the consequence or punishment, drug use in this country has not fluctuated much at all.

Mandatory minimum sentences have the effect of putting low level drug users and dealers in jail for long periods of time even when they may have been only peripherally involved. These sentencing schemes have also increased our prison budgets and mandated that we keep building more and more jails every year to house our "criminals."

If, historically, harsher penalties had ANY effect on levels of drug use, your argument might hold water, but as it is, your unthinking, knee-jerk approach will only serve to further bankrupt this country and continue to fuel the war between police and the people they are supposed to serve and protect.