The ballot initiative to legalize possession of small amounts of marijuana in Nevada is gaining support. Polls are showing the measure now has 50% support from the voters.

"The furor over Question 9 will intensify soon. [White House Drug Czar] Walters said that he plans to travel to Nevada to speak against the measure. But its backers are planning television ads and say they have volunteers ready to go door to door to campaign for its passage."

"Known as Question 9, Nevadans will decide whether to allow adults 21 and older to possess and smoke as much as three ounces of marijuana, simply because they feel like it, with no threat of criminal penalty. Under current state law, anyone caught with that much marijuana -- which authorities say makes roughly 100 joints -- could face four years in prison."

"The November ballot proposal forbids pot smoking in public, or while driving. It also bans marijuana advertising and import of the drug. Nevada would have to grow and distribute its own marijuana through state-licensed outlets, and could tax every sale. Some officials say such a move could be a jackpot worth millions of dollars for the state every year. To become law, voters will have to approve it twice, first in November, then again in 2004."

For more information, visit the Marijuana Policy Project and Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement.

We hear the tv ads will be terrific and are likely to push the measure over the top on election day.

Rave Act Action Alert: September 6, 2002
Please call your Senators on Friday, September 6th:

The RAVE Act would give the DEA the power to raid property owners who host events where marijuana and other drugs might be used.

On September 6th, call your Senators and tell them to oppose S. 2633, the RAVE Act. Tell them that innocent business owners shouldn't be punished for the activities of their customers. Tell them this bill has dangerous anti-civil liberties provisions that they need to be aware of, and that it's a threat to public health.

Here is more information on the Rave Act protest campaign. Here is more from TalkLeft on what's wrong with the bill. Here is law professor Glenn Reynolds' Fox News column "Raving Lunacy" decrying the proposed Act.

This is an ill-advised piece of legislation. Get on the horn today. Congress is back in session and this day has been targeted as the day to make these protests. Emails are not as effective as phone calls and faxes.

Who goes to prison under New York's Rockefeller drug laws? According to a well-documented June, 2002 report by Human Rights Watch entitled Collateral Casualties:

"Few of the drug offenders sent to prison are major traffickers or violent, dangerous individuals for whom serious prison sentences are justified. Whether first time or repeat offenders, most of them were convicted of participating in voluntary, nonviolent, retail-level transactions between adults to obtain or sell drugs, or of functioning in other low-level roles in the drug trade:

· 60 percent of the incarcerated drug offenders were convicted of offenses in the three lowest classes of drug felonies-Class C, D, and E-which involve only minute drug amounts.

· Among drug offenders sent to prison, almost one in three (30.7 percent) had no prior felony convictions for any crime.

· 46.1 percent had prior convictions limited to nonviolent felonies.

· Less than one in four (23.2 percent) had any prior violent felony convictions."

"Put in place over a quarter century ago, the so-called Rockefeller drug laws prevent judges from tailoring sentences that are proportionate to the crime. Harsh prison sentences are required for even minor offenses; judges lack the authority to impose alternatives to incarceration such as community-based sanctions or substance abuse treatment."

"For example, for a single $10 sale of cocaine, the lowest sentence a court can impose is a term of one to three years. If the offender has a prior conviction-as many drug offenders do-the lowest sentence is a term of four-and-one-half to nine years in prison. The sentences can be far worse: a first-offender convicted of involvement in the sale of two ounces of cocaine faces a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years, with a life-term maximum."

These are hardly cartel-level trafficking amounts.

The laws also unfairly punish mules and drivers by considering only the amount of drugs involved in the offense and the offender's prior record. Federal law recognizes that such persons may occupy a minor or minimal role in the offense and should receive a lesser sentence than the person who hired them to transport the drugs or who was otherwise extensively involved in the distribution chain. New York law makes no such distinction. These outdated laws are among the most punitive in the nation. They need to be changed.

There are at least two additional issues that demonstrate the gross unfairness of these laws: racial disparity and the children.

"The unfairness of many drug sentences is compounded by their discriminatory impact. Prison sentences for drug offenses have been imposed disproportionately on members of racial and ethnic minorities-blacks and Hispanics constitute 94 percent of the drug felons sent to prison but only 31 percent of the state's population. "

"Black men in New York are sent to prison on drug charges at eleven times the rate of white men. The racial disparity in incarceration for drug offenses bears little relation to racial differences in drug offending."

"Available evidence indicates that whites-who constitute 62 percent of New York residents-use, buy, and sell drugs in proportions that differ little from blacks. In absolute numbers, the total of whites who commit drug offenses exceeds the number of blacks. "

"Yet blacks are more likely than whites to be arrested, convicted, and incarcerated on drug charges, because drug law enforcement efforts target participants in street-level, retail drug transactions in poor-primarily minority-urban neighborhoods."

Perhaps saddest of all is the effect on the children of the imprisoned, see the comments section to our post yesterday on Andrew Cuomo's withdrawal from the NY Governor's race (we are referring to our comment of course, not the one we were replying to.)

Lisa English of Ruminate This , an excellent blog we try to read daily, expands on our prior pleas for you to contact your legislators and urge passage of the Innocence Protection Act. Go over and read it, and spend some time browsing her other interesting posts and links on all sorts of topics.

And then visit the Innocence Project, the website of Senator Patrick Leahy and the Justice Project-- all are a wealth of information on the pending legislation-- and then pick up the phone or fax a letter.

110 have been freed so far, how many more are waiting in prison cells for DNA testing that could prove their innocence?

According to Students for a Sensible Drug Policy, 87,000 students have lost college financial aid due to drug convictions.

According to their press release received today,

"According to new Department of Education data, over 30,000 college students have been denied federal loans and grants for the 2002-2003 school year due to the 1998 Higher Education Act drug provision."

"Since the HEA drug provision was first enforced in 2000, a total of 86,898 students have been denied aid. A drug conviction is the only crime that can result in the loss of federal financial aid."

“The latest Department of Education statistics confirm that the punitive HEA drug provision remains the number one obstacle for people seeking a higher education,” says Shawn Heller, National Director of Students for Sensible Drug Policy. "

“Since African Americans make up half of all people convicted of drug crimes, yet only represent 13% of all drug users, it’s evident that this regulation disproportionately punishes minorities. Tens of thousands more have likely not bothered to apply for college because they know they won’t receive loans or grants."

SSDP is working on 500 campuses to end this education disaster,” says Heller.

They need your help. Here is a sample letter you can write to ask your elected officials to support the Coalition for Higher Education Act Reform.

It also explains a lot more about the present law and its flaws.

[Ed. Note: this entry has been edited because we couldn't get the formatting right and it took up too much space. We've left the important parts, notice of the protest events.]

We received this notice today of upcoming protests against the RAVE Act pending in Congress. It comes from ROAR (Ravers Organized Against the Rave Act):

TalkLeft strongly opposes the Rave Act for reasons we've set forth here and hope the protests are successful.

From the Notice:

"Opposition to the RAVE Act is mounting. On Friday September 6th there will be
protests/raves in Washington, DC and Los Angles in opposition to the bill. The DC protest will be on the lawn of the U.S. Capitol - complete with DJs, electronic
music, glow sticks, etc."

"Congress wants to take on raves, so we'll be bringing a rave to them!! There may be a similar event in NYC on the same day, and organizers are hoping to have events later in the month in other cities, possibly Austin, Chicago, Charlotte, Boston, San Francisco, and Philadelphia. "

"Also, please send the event info to any DC and LA-area lists you have. We need as many people as possible to attend."

"Additionally, Sept. 6th will be a national call-in day for voters to call their Senators in opposition to the RAVE Act. We highly encourage people to send alerts to their lists next week asking their supporters to call their Senators on Friday and tell them to oppose the RAVE Act."

"Details: THE DC EVENT: ROAR! RAVERS ORGANIZED AGAINST THE RAVE ACT

PROTEST AND RAVE AT THE US CAPITOL!!! FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 6TH, 2002.
3-8PM!! WEST LAWN OF THE US CAPITOL

FREE music from DJs: Ty-T DJ Sun Switchstance Lexus King Deinfamous w/MC Son of Nun; Speakers include: Sam the Man Burns,Amanda Huie, Buzzlife Productions,Shawn Heller, Students for a Sensible Drug Policy,Juliette Siegfried (aka DJ Zelda), Metatrack Studios, AmtrackDJs"

"THE LOS ANGELES EVENT: From FREEDOM TO DANCE:

STOP THE R.A.V.E. ACT SEPTEMBER 6th 3PM-8PM,WESTWOOD FEDERAL BUILDING, 11000 WILSHIRE BLVD.

Don't Let The Government Stop The Music, Our Civil Liberties are at Stake! We Must Send A Loud Message! There is Power in Numbers! Show Up! Speak Out! Represent!

With DJs: Doc Martin, Richard Humpty Vission, Garth Trinidad, Colette, Curious, Daniel, Kid Dragon, Freddy B and surprise guests."

"The RAVE Act (Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act) S.2633--The RAVE Act would expand the federal "crack house" statute. Water Bottles, glowsticks and chill out rooms could be classified as "drug promotion." Business people, promoters, venue owners and even homeowners will be liable for any drugs used on their premises."

"The bill already passed through committee without a public hearing or recorded vote - It is expected to be voted on in September by the full senate (there are currently no opposing votes) - If passed promoters could be fined up to $250,000 and sentenced up to 20 years in federal prison."

"For more information check out the Event Line Website or call Event Info line 310-854-2016"

"Fight For Your Constitutional Rights to Freedom of Expression and Assembly, Friday September 6th, 3pm - 8pm Westood Federal Building, Northwest Lawn."

The financial privacy law is inching forward in the California state legislature. The San Francisco Chronicle today praises the bill.

"It would be fitting for California to become the first state in the nation to seize the opportunity offered by Congress to exceed the weak privacy rules in the federal Financial Modernization Act of 1999. "

"This is the state that established privacy as an inalienable right in its constitution. Few aspects of our lives are as personal as our family finances. Assembly members should be encouraged by voters who care about privacy to pass the Speier-Nation bill."

ABC News has a long piece today on the proposed federal RAVE Act. In case you aren't familiar with the Act, RAVE stands for "Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy."

The bill expands the federal "crack-house" statute, designed to prosecute anyone whose buildings are used as drug havens,including party promoters.

"Under the Senate bill, anyone involved with the planning of a rave who knows drugs are used, exchanged or made there could face criminal charges and be subject to a civil penalty of $250,000 or two times the gross receipts derived from each violation."

"The legislation's broad language may appear to encompass any nightclub or other venue where drugs may be present, but the act's title suggests that the real targets here are raves. "

We stand by our prevous description of the bill as "lunacy." And here is our earlier Action Alert if you want to make your opposition known.

Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) is a principal sponsor. The bill will likely be taken up by Congress in October.

For some organizations with lots of info on the Rave Act, check out DanceSafe. If you want more info on ecstasy, try Myths and Facts About Ecstasy with lots of links.

Just in from the Marijuana Policy Project on the upcoming Nevada ballot initiative to end arrests and prosecutions for personal possession of up to 3 ounces of marijuana:

"With only 12 weeks to go, our Nevada ballot initiative campaign is in a dead heat. And some police officers are possibly breaking the law
-- and certainly lying -- in their desperate scramble to try to defeat us.

The Reno Gazette-Journal, the largest newspaper in Reno, has released a statewide poll showing that 48% of the voters are planning to vote
for our initiative, 48% are opposed, and 4% are undecided. Our campaign is closing the gap ...

A week prior, a statewide poll conducted by the Las Vegas Review-Journal found 44% in favor, 46% opposed, and 10% undecided."

They need contributions to be used for a tv campaign blitz. Please give if you can.

The Justice Department yesterday released a proposed new rule on relief from deportation in response to last year's Supreme Court ruling in the St. Cyr case.

The Justice Department's analysis of the St. Cyr. decision is as follows:

"The St. Cyr case resulted from five years of litigation involving the application of two statutes that Congress enacted in 1996. The first statute -- the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) enacted on April 24, 1996 -- barred section 212© relief for permanent resident aliens with very serious criminal convictions. The second statute -- the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) enacted six months later -- eliminated section 212© relief altogether."

[In St. Cyr] "the Supreme Court disagreed with the government’s interpretation. The Court held that Congress did not clearly intend to apply the AEDPA amendments to aliens who were placed in deportation proceedings before the statute’s enactment, or to aliens with relief applications pending on the date of enactment. The Court further held that applying the statute to
these aliens may attach unexpected consequences to their past criminal conduct -- that is, it would deprive them of the opportunity to apply for section 212© relief for which they were eligible at the time of their convictions by plea agreement. "

"Thus, the Court concluded that, notwithstanding AEDPA and IIRIRA, aliens whose convictions were obtained through plea agreements could still apply for section 212© relief, if those aliens, notwithstanding those convictions, would have been eligible for section 212© relief under the law that was in effect at
the time of their pleas."

The newly proposed rule establishes "procedures for eligible lawful permanent residents (LPRs) with certain criminal convictions, prior to April 1, 1997, to apply for relief from deportation or removal under former section 212© of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This relief is available to eligible individuals who are currently in immigration proceedings, who may be placed in removal proceedings, or who have completed immigration proceedings and are under final orders of deportation or removal. It does not apply to those who have already been deported from the United States."

Eligible individuals who are under final orders of deportation or removal who are still in the United States must apply for this relief within 180 days after the publication of the final rule.

The rule is published in the Federal Register and can be accessed here.

The Executive Office for Immigration Review has published a six page question and answer sheet on the relief provided under the new rule.

A step in the right direction, for sure. But the proposed rule does not provide relief to people who have already been deported which means that these people would be unable to reopen their cases or return to the United States even though their deportation came about through the government's mistaken interpretation of the law. This should be changed.

We expect many groups will be submitting comments on the extreme unfairness of the lack of provision for persons already deported.

[comments now closed]

Not long ago we wrote about the Nevade Cops and Sheriffs Org. who came out supporting the November ballot initiative on decriminalizing marijuana in that state.

It sounded too good to be true and it was. The AP is now reporting that the Nevada police group has changed its stance.

The ballot initiative would allow marijuana to be sold only in state-licensed and taxed smoke shops. it would still be a crime for minors to possess or use the drug and and public use would be banned.

To become law, the measure must pass twice in November and again in 2004. For more on the intitiative, go to Marijuana Policy Project.

For the earlier police stance, check our earlier post.

Not Every Exonerated Man Gets Repaid after release from prison despite serving lengthy, often decades long, terms of imprisonment for crimes they did not commit. Most states don't allow for it.

"Only 15 states and the District of Columbia do. Of those laws, many are antiquated, difficult to access and offer relatively low monetary awards. "

Every state should have a statute providing reasonable compensation to the ever growing number of innocents released from prison.

This statistic is shameful: "Of the 109 released due to DNA evidence with help from the Innocence Project, only 12 have received reparations. "

Bryan Stevenson, director of the Equal Justice Initiative of Alabama, correctly notes:

The presumption should be, if you were exonerated, the state should compensate you for the time you were in prison and to help make your transition easier into the real world. I think that's something society owes someone it has deprived of the liberties we take for granted."

The Innocence Project will be expanding its focus to include a push for legislation to allow such compensation and for related items: "They need ... other kinds of support, too, ranging from job skills, mental health, family related issues, and depression."

The article notes that the issue is not "terribly controversial. There is no vocal lobby against allocating funds for wrongly convicted prisoners."

Please, help with the efforts in your state. Fair is fair.

Update: Greta is discussing the case of Larry Johnson now. Larry is the man in Missouri released last week after serving 18 years for a rape he didn't commit. He is one of those who hasn't gotten a dime. Larry Johnson's lawyer is confirming to Greta what Barry Scheck said initially, that the prosecutor in this case, Jennifer Joyce, was the stumbling block. See our prior post on this.