Please Contact your U.S. Representatives and Senators to Co-Sponsor and/or Support This Legislation:

Congressman Danny K. Davis, 7th District of Illinois, introduced new legislation entitled "Public Safety Ex-offender Self Sufficiency Act of 2002" (H.R. 2166) into the House of Representatives. It provides for transitional housing for ex-offenders, with on-site delivery of employment placement and supportive services to facilitate successful ex-offender re-entry and promote public safety.

H.R. 2166 amends the IRS code of 1986 to reflect an ex-offender low-income housing credit to encourage the provision of housing, job readiness training, and other essential services delivered in structured living environments designed to assist ex-offenders in becoming self-sufficient.

This comprehensive legislative initiative addresses the United
State's lack of a systematic, comprehensive approach to re-
integrating the increasing number of returning ex-offenders. It seeks to decrease recidivism rates and the cost of crime to victims, and increase public safety.

The Feeney Amendment went into effect today, along with the Amber Alert Bill (and the revised RAVE Act.) Federal Judges, from those at the District Court level up through Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist are not happy:

Beginning today, federal judges will have less discretion than ever to craft sentences for criminals, because of a little-debated new law that increases the minimum amount of prison time for several crimes and will dramatically change federal sentencing.

....''It turns me into a bureaucrat, and I do not believe for a moment that the public wants that,'' said Nancy Gertner, a US district judge in Massachusetts who has written and lectured on the existing federal guidelines, which already tightly control the range of sentences judges can hand down.

A parade of critics -- US Supreme Court justices, the American Bar Association, the Judicial Conference of the United States, and several current and former federal prosecutors -- has attacked the bill for taking discretion from trial judges.

Under the new law, Congress has "taken the unprecedented step" of dictating to federal judges what sentences must be imposed. Since 1986, when the U.S. Sentencing Commission was established, that role has belonged to the Commission. (the federal sentencing guidelines went into effect in 1987.)

Jacob Sullem writes about the passage of Joe Biden's re-named Rave Act in When Holding a Party Is a Crime:

The act prohibits "knowingly opening, maintaining, managing, controlling, renting, leasing, making available for use, or profiting from any place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing or using any controlled substance." Given this broad language, anyone who organizes or rents space for an event where drug use takes place could face criminal charges. Not only is the law unlikely to keep people from using Ecstasy, it could magnify the drug's dangers by pushing raves further underground and discouraging voluntary efforts to protect users from serious harm.

The most significant short-term risk associated with MDMA is its impairment of the body's ability to regulate temperature. Overheating is a special concern at raves, where people may dance vigorously in crowded, poorly ventilated spaces for hours at a time.

For years volunteer groups like DanceSafe have been passing out fliers at raves and night clubs with advice on how to avoid dangerous overheating-- drink water, take frequent breaks, abstain from alcohol (which compounds dehydration). Event sponsors have helped by providing bottles of water and ventilated "chill out" rooms, measures intended not to encourage drug use but to reduce drug-related harm.

Under the new law such sensible precautions could be seen as evidence that the host or owner knew guests would be using drugs, exposing him to $250,000 or more in civil penalties, a criminal fine of up to $500,000, and a prison sentence of up to 20 years.

[link via Balloon-Juice]

Canada proposed a new marijuana law Tuesday that decriminalizes up to 15 grams of marijuana. Offenders would receive a citation similar to a traffic ticket and pay a fine. There would be no criminal record attached to paying the citation.

Those under 18 years old could face fines of up to $182 for minor possession while adults could be fined the equivalent of $292. At the same time, the maximum sentence for illegal growers would be increased to 14 years in prison from the current seven, while trafficking would remain punishable by up to life in prison.

Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said the law includes an education, research and treatment program aimed at persuading young people against drug use. The government intends to spend $179 million on the program.

Other issues regarding Canada's pot laws have yet to be resolved.

Canada's Supreme Court is considering a constitutional challenge to
laws that make it illegal to possess pot, and Ontario courts have
declared the federal law against possession to be invalid because of
legal questions.

The U.S., particularly Drug Czar John Walters, is upset with Canada for proposing to liberalize marijuana laws. The U.S. has threatened increased border searches if the bill becomes law. As we reported here last week:

Last week, U.S. drug czar John Walters suggested border traffic would slow to a crawl because the U.S. would increase inspections to stop smugglers from illegally shipping "poison" south.

Will Glaspy, a U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency spokesman, told The Detroit News yesterday that talk of decriminalizing pot in Canada would mean "more customs, more border patrols, more DEA. (source article here)

You can read the text of the Canadian bill here. A background briefing paper on the bill is here.

Ari Fleischer, asked about the bill at today's press briefing, gave his usual non-response:

Alaska has joined Hawaii and 112 other cities and towns across the nation in passing a resolution opposing the Patriot Act.

Alaska's measure goes further than most, advising police and other state agencies not to "initiate, participate in, or assist or cooperate with an inquiry, investigation, surveillance or detention" if there is not "reasonable suspicion of criminal activity under Alaska State law."

"We have a concern that [the Patriot Act] could be abused. The potential for abuse is too great," said Rep. David Guttenberg, a Democrat who co-sponsored the resolution. "America is an open state. There's a cost to that. Where are we willing to sacrifice for that? Guys are dying on the battlefield to protect our freedoms. It's up to us to protect those freedoms here at home."

The ACLU also reports on Alaska's tough stance.

This resolution affirms the motto of Alaska, ‘North to the Future,’” said Jennifer Rudinger, Executive Director of the AkCLU. “As a state, we have always led the Lower 48 in respecting and ensuring the individual rights of our residents under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This exceptionally strong resolution reflects our dedication to civil liberties and our deep-seated belief that Alaska – and America – can be both safe and free.”

The Alaska resolution was bipartisan and passed in the House with a vote of 37 to 1. On May 20 it passed the Senate with a vote of 19 to 0.

The Alaska resolution explicitly prohibits state agencies from engaging in racial profiling and prohibits the use of state resources or institutions for the enforcement of federal immigration matters. It also bars state agencies from creating intelligence dossiers on the political, religious and social views of individuals and organizations, unless the information directly relates to an investigation of criminal activities.

Further, in the absence of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity under Alaska state law, it prohibits participation in investigations, detentions and surveillance as well as seizure of personal library, medical, financial, student and sales records, even when authorized by the PATRIOT Act. Additionally, the resolution calls upon the Alaskan Congressional delegation to work to correct sections of the USA PATRIOT Act and other measures that unduly restrict personal freedoms.

You can read the text of the resolution here. [Thanks to Manish of Damn Foreigner for tipping us to the news and link]

[comments now closed due to being spammed.]

Texas has passed one of the country's "most sweeping" abortion counseling laws. Among its many objectionable provisions is the requirement that doctors "warn women that abortion might lead to breast cancer."

That link, however, does not exist, according to the American Cancer Society and federal government researchers, and critics say the law is a thinly veiled attempt to intimidate, frighten and shame women who are seeking an abortion. Proponents say they are merely trying to give women as much information as possible, and argue that research into the alleged link between abortion and breast cancer remains inconclusive.

After years of failed attempts to outlaw abortion outright, social conservatives across the nation are now finding success in limiting abortions by requiring so-called counseling of patients. Among the most aggressive tactics is the attempt to link abortion with breast cancer, a move that many conservative organizations have undertaken, but rarely with the success they have found in Texas.

The bill has passed both houses in Texas and the Governor has said he will sign it into law.

From NORML:

Republicans Ron Paul (TX) and Dana Rohrabacher (CA), along with Democrats Barney Frank (MA), Janice Schakowsky (IL) and 21 co-sponsors reintroduced legislation today in Congress that permits the use of medicinal marijuana by seriously ill patients.

The "States' Rights to Medical Marijuana: bill reschedules marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II under federal law so that physicians may legally prescribe it in states that have legalized the medical use of marijuana under state law. It also permits state legislatures that wish to establish medical marijuana distribution systems the legal authority to do so.

This legislation ... effectively gets the federal government out of the way of those states that wish to regulate marijuana as a medicine. Since 1996, eight states Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington have enacted laws allowing patients to possess and use marijuana medicinally under a doctor's supervision.

Passage of the bill would halt federal prosecution of medicinal marijuana patients and their providers in states where the use of physician-approved pot is legal. Since the Bush Administration took office, federal drug enforcement officials have taken action against more than 35 medicinal marijuana patients, cooperatives and providers in California alone.

The "States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act" is the second medical marijuana bill introduced in Congress this year.

In April, Congressmen Sam Farr (D-CA), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), and Barney Frank (D-MA) introduced H.R. 1717, the "Truth in Trials Act," which would allow medicinal marijuana patients and providers charged under federal law to introduce evidence at trial that their use of marijuana was for medicinal purposes and/or in accordance with state law. Currently, federal judges will not allow such evidence into testimony because Congress has never determined that marijuana has medical value.

To voice your support for the bill, go here. This action page contains a list of the many co-sponsors of the bill.

If your member of Congress is a co-sponsor, please thank them for their support. If not, please take two minutes to send a pre-written letter to your Congressman, asking them to co-sponsor and support the States’ Rights to Medical Marijuana Act.

We like Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich for this action today:

Refusing to bend to pressure from the Bush administration, Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich signed a bill Thursday that reduces criminal penalties for seriously ill people who smoke marijuana.

....Ehrlich is the first GOP governor to sign a bill protecting medical marijuana patients from jail, according to the Marijuana Policy Project. The Bush administration had pressed him to veto the measure. Ehrlich had indicated his support for the bill early on as a way to help people with chronic illnesses ease their pain.

The new law does not legalize marijuana, but reduces the penalty to a maximum $100 fine with no jail time if defendants convince a judge they need marijuana for medical reasons. Previously, possession or use of marijuana brought penalties of up to a year in prison or a $1,000 fine.

We've had a few medical marijuana clients lately. We know it helps them. We think it's ridiculous that they are subjected to DEA raids in their homes with their children present, property foreclosures (including their homes where the pot is found) and jail.

We prefer decriminalization to legalization. Our clients go to jail if they can't get the proper medical marijuana license. Often, physicians don't want to sign onto a medical pot license. They're worried about their reputations and the heat it may bring. Enough with the rules. Let the sick smoke in peace, free from bureaucratic red tape. We have no objection to criminalizing pot sales to minors, but other than that, particularly for those in medical need due to chronic pain or nausea, let's just let them be.

Marijuana Policy Project and NORML have more.

Matt Yglesias picks up on our "dumb law of the week" post criticizing Iowa for passing a law to equalize the crack/powder cocaine sentencing ratios by raising the penalties for powder offenses. He mentions there were prior federal attempts to do so which failed to pass Congress. Very true.

Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) introduced S.1162, the "Powder-Crack Cocaine Penalty Equalization Act of 1997." Then there was S. 2033, "The Powder Cocaine Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Act of 1998 and S. 260 (which almost made it to a floor vote.) Co-sponsors, and sponsors of similar bills, included: Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) ; Senate Judiciary Committee Members Spencer Abraham (R-MI); Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) ; Charles Grassley (R-IA) (same), Jon Kyl (R-AZ) ; Senator Charles Robb (D-VA) ; Senator John Breaux (D-La) ; and House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald Solomon (R-NY).

While those bills were pending, over two dozen federal appeals and district court judges -- all of whom formerly served as United States Attorney -- submitted a joint letter to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees that flatly and persuasively opposed these proposals.

Tuesday, Senator Kennedy, joined by Senators Leahy, Feingold, and Lautenberg, introduced S.1086 (The JUDGES Act) to repeal provisions of the PROTECT Act (Amber Alert Bill) that do not specifically deal with the prevention of the exploitation of children -- specifically the Feeney Amendment. A similar bill is being introduced in the House by Rep. Conyers.

The remarks of Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Leahy, beginning at S6711 of the Congressional Record of 5/20/03, included the following:

Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing this legislation on fairness in our Federal sentencing system. The Judicial Use of Discretion to Guarantee Equity in Sentencing Act, or the JUDGES Act, will repeal a number of controversial sentencing provisions that were added at the last moment to the recently enacted ``AMBER Alert law'' on missing, abducted, and exploited children.

These provisions--called the ``Feeney Amendment''--have nothing to do with protecting children, and everything to do with handcuffing judges and
eliminating fairness in our Federal sentencing system. As Chief Justice Rehnquist said, they ``do serious harm to the basic structure of the sentencing guidelines system and . . . seriously impair the ability of courts to impose just and responsible sentences.''

For the dumb law of the week, we go to Iowa, where the state legislature has been trying to pass a bill to reduce the prison population. Instead, they passed a bill raising the penalties for powder cocaine to more closely resemble those for crack cocaine. The result: There will be an increase in Iowa's jail population.

Under the new law, the penalties for powder will be raised so that crack penalties will only be 10 times the penalty for powder, instead of the current ratio of 100:1.

Only in the 'Twilight Zone,' which is the Legislature, could a bill start with the concept of trying to do something with sentencing reform . . . and end up with a bill that will increase our prison population," said Rep. Kevin McCarthy, a Des Moines Democrat and former assistant attorney general.

Crack Cocaine penalties are absurdly high. They should come down to match penalties for powder, not the otherway around. We call this the "Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right" bill.

A bill introduced in Texas to release Tulia drug bust prisoners pending a ruling by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals , which could take months, is advancing. Two special prosecutors working on the cases are backing it. The bill was introduced by Houston Sen. John Whitmire who said,""I want these folks out is the bottom line, like yesterday."