Monthly Archives: March 2021

Tarahrick Terry first began arguing for a reduced sentence in 2019. Eleven years prior, Terry pleaded guilty to possessing 3.9 grams of crack cocaine and was sentenced to 188 months imprisonment. During Terrys time incarcerated, two key pieces of legislation have been passed: The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 and the First Step Act of 2018.

The 2010 law raised the amounts of crack cocaine that triggered various tiers of criminal penalties. The First Step Act made the 2010 law retroactive once district courts were given the ability to lessen sentences of those with a covered offense committed before August 3, 2010. But despite Donald Trumps having signed the First Step Act, the Trump administration maintained that Terrys low-level offense fell outside the acts coverage.

Not including certain low-level crack offenses under the statue carried on the racist disparities of the crack era. Sentences for crack were more severe than they were for powder cocaine, because crack was associated with stereotypes depicting Black folks as violent drug offenders. People selling crack, as well as those who suffered from addiction, were uniquely berated by politicians and the press.

Crack was vilified by policymakers, explained Maritza Perez, the director of the Drug Policy Alliances National Affairs office. And it was politically popular to throw people who use drugs, specifically crack offenders, under the bus for cheap political wins.

In September, Terry petitioned the Supreme Court saying he qualified for a sentence reduction, because the First Step Act made 2010s Fair Sentencing Act retroactive. His case got a boost earlier this week, when President Bidens Justice Department informed the Supreme Court they believe that Terry, and others who were incarcerated for low-level crack cocaine offenses, should have their sentences reduced under the First Step Act. The court plans to hear the case later this year.

In an interview with Slate, Perez spoke about the racist roots of the sentencing disparity, whether sentence reduction is enough, and if Bidens reversal is an attempt to remedy his station as the architect of mass incarcerationeven if it is a step in the right direction.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

How would you explain the crack-cocaine sentencing disparity to people who may not be familiar with it, or the push to get low-level drug offenders released?

This policy came to be during the tough-on-crime era when politicians sought to make the drug war the scapegoat for a lot of social problems. They found that it was a really politically popular thing to do. That led to a series of bills that built the system of mass incarceration that we know today. Part of that effort was the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which created a disparity between people who were convicted of cocaine offenses versus people who were convicted of crack offenses. That disparity was a 100:1. (Note: The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 reduced this disparity down to 18:1)

So, it was a hundred times more harsh for people who were convicted of crack offenses. And the individuals who were typically convicted of crack offenses were people of colorbut mostly Black people.

Crack was vilified by policymakers. And it was politically popular to throw people who use drugs, specifically crack offenders, under the bus for cheap political wins. The drug was super sensationalized in the media, even though, chemically, crack and cocaine have the same effects on the body. The only difference was that crack use was associated with Black Americans, whereas cocaine use was associated with white Americans. Thats just a stereotype. White people actually use crack and cocaine more than Black people do.

Its becoming more well known what crack did to Black communities and what it is still doing. But what are the effects of mass incarceration on Black and Brown communities?

There are a lot of issues with our prisons, but the primary effect is that its taking people away from their families, their friends, and any systems of support they may have. And that actually leads to less public safety. So it doesnt even make sense from a public safety standpoint.

When people are released from jail or prison, their sentence really isnt over in many ways. There are about 50,000 collateral consequences attached to incarceration across the country. They range from barring people from public housing and public health benefitsthings like SNAP and TANF. People can have their children taken away, be denied jobs or education because of their conviction. If youre not an American citizen, you might even be exposed to deportation or losing your status. And this isnt just people who have served time in jail or prison. This could also be the effects for somebody whos just had contact with the criminal justice system, like an arrest, because there is a record of that that follows an individual around.

The effects of that on communities of color has been deeply profound. Its led to less public safety. Its led to family separation. Its led to poverty and a host of mental health issuesand general health issues. Losing somebody to incarceration is very traumatic. Living in poverty is also very traumatic. So it has a tremendous impact.

Absolutely. If people who have been incarcerated for low-level crack cocaine offenses are able to get their sentences reduced, is that a step in the right direction? And, if it is, how so?

It would definitely be a step in the right direction. I want to point out that there are many individuals who are still languishing behind bars because of this sentencing disparity, and that would benefit tremendously. If this law became the law of the land tomorrow, they could go home and that would be huge. Were talking about people who have served decades of time.

Another significant thing that would come from it is it would be one of the first times that I can recall the government actually acknowledging wrongdoing and trying to fix it. But if something like this were to pass, that would be an example of where the government acknowledged that this disparity was racist, anti-science, and had an unjust impact on communities of color, specifically Black communities. That within itself would be significant and, hopefully, it would lead to bolder change around sentencing and criminal justice reform.

Could this be perceived as an attempt by Biden to remedy his past involvement with the 1994 crime bill?

I do think its part of Bidens plan to account for the harm that hes done in the past. Biden was one of the architects of mass incarceration in this country. Earlier, when I was talking about the tough on crime era, Biden could be considered a leader of that movement. So I think he understands that he has to repair those harms. And this is definitely one way to do that.

Its also important to point out that Black and brown people delivered him to the White House. And this policy is one that specifically impacts those communities. Its a racial justice issue, aside from being a significant criminal justice issue. I think he definitely has taken all of that into account. But its also the right thing to do.

Is this enough or is it just an adequate first step?

Its an adequate first step, but its certainly not enough. Our sentencing laws are so outdated and draconian, especially when it comes to drug offenses. The federal system is rife with people serving very long sentences for drug activity. We know that people in this country are exposed to mandatory minimums every day for drug activity.

We have long said that drug activity should be treated through a public health lens, not through a criminal justice lens. And if we do take that approach, there are so many people and in jails and prisons across this country who should not be there.

What would maybe start to be enough is if clemency was provided for people who are serving long sentences for drug offenses; if we completely ended the use of mandatory minimums; if we provided reparations to communities of color that have been torn apart by the war on drugs; and if we decriminalized drug possession and drug activity. Those things would go a long way.

This is just a starta drop in the bucket of the work thats left to do.

Readers like you make our work possible. Help us continue to provide the reporting, commentary, and criticism you wont find anywhere else.

Go here to read the rest:

The Biden Administration Takes a Step Toward Undoing the Damage of the War on Drugs - Slate

Chemdawg marijuana plants grow at a facility in Smiths Falls, Ontario, Canada October 29, 2019. (Blair Gable/Reuters)

We all knew thered be consequences to Joe Biden picking Kamala Harris as his running mate, but who could have predicted the crackdown would begin so soon? According to Scott Bixby, Asawin Suebsaeng, and Adam Rawnsley over at the Daily Beast, a pot purge is underway at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. From their story:

Dozens of young White House staffers have been suspended, asked to resign, or placed in a remote work program due to past marijuana use, frustrating staffers who were pleased by initial indications from the Biden administration that recreational use of cannabis would not be immediately disqualifying for would-be personnel, according to three people familiar with the situation.

The policy has even affected staffers whose marijuana use was exclusive to one of the 14 statesand the District of Columbiawhere cannabis is legal. Sources familiar with the matter also said a number of young staffers were either put on probation or canned because they revealed past marijuana use in an official document they filled out as part of the lengthy background check for a position in the Biden White House.

In some cases, staffers were informally told by transition higher-ups ahead of formally joining the administration that they would likely overlook some past marijuana use, only to be asked later to resign.

There were one-on-one calls with individual affected staffersrather, ex-staffers, one former White House staffer affected by the policy told The Daily Beast. I was asked to resign.

Nothing was ever explained on the calls, they added, which were led by White House Director of Management and Administration Anne Filipic. The policies were never explained, the threshold for what was excusable and what was inexcusable was never explained.

Obviously, continued drug use should be incompatible with a White House job, but should any indication of prior use really necessitate this kind of response? Press Secretary Jen Psaki responded like this:

We announced a few weeks ago that the White House had worked with the security service to update the policies to ensure that past marijuana use wouldnt automatically disqualify staff from serving in the White House. As a result, more people will serve who would not have in the past with the same level of recent drug use. The bottom line is this: of the hundreds of people hired, only five people who had started working at the White House are no longer employed as a result of this policy.

You dont have to agree with the National Reviews editors to wonderwhy five people were asked to resign; or why many more were suspended and asked to work from home; or to see that Psakis statement doesnt answer these questions. The best question of all, though, is this: What distinguishes those punished for their past behavior from Vice President Harris, who boasted about her own experiences with marijuana on the campaign trail in 2019?

Continued here:

The New War-on-Drugs Target: White House Staffers - National Review

...and you can click here to watch Episode 1, "The War on Race," in its entirety.

"This piece is for all our citizens who are becoming more aware of the institutions and policies of our nation," Human Toll director cean Vashti Jude tells Muse. "We are living in a time where people are becoming more conscious. They want to pull back the veil, hear truths. This series will give it to them."

Experts discuss how the government, police and mass media used drug policy as a racial wedge, adopting the term "marijuana," as opposed to cannabis, "because it sounded foreign, it sounded scary, it sounded like something that bad people would use," John Hudak, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, says in the film.

Using such tactics, the establishment demonized cannabis users years before pot was banned in 1937. This set the stage for social unrest, tainting Mexican and African Americans, beatniks, hippies and others as intrinsically unsavory owing to their affinity for weed.

"When we get to the later war on drugs, we have this opportunity for the government to use as a substance as a cipher for an internal threat to American prosperity and democracy and social cohesion," Papillion says. This precipitated the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of drug offendersnotably Black and Hispanic menwho often served lengthy sentences for minor infractions and non-violent crimes, such as cannabis use and possession.

"I'm trying to have people connect with folks who are usually just statistics," Jude says. "A lot of people are in jail for something the general population uses. But if we shine a light on these issues and we introduce people who have experienced these unjust things, then we make it harder to turn a blind eye. When we know better, we do better."

Now, some viewers may find the presentation too breezy or one-sided. That's a fair criticism, but The Human Toll still ranks as effective advocacy journalism and timely branded content.

"This is not just something that happened in the rear view," says Laura Fogelman, senior director of communications and public affairs, PAX Labs. "There are more than 40,000 people incarcerated today for nonviolent, cannabis-related crimes, while our industry remains one of the fastest growing in America. It will take all of us coming together, demanding much-needed reforms, to see meaningful change."

The nextepisodes, "Collateral Consequences" and "Getting Out," launch on March 26.

The Human Toll and recent initiatives from Jay-Z's Monogram company and Problem and Wiz Khalifa, shine a light on persistent problems and spark hope for a more equitable future. PAX previously championed the cause in its Gold Clio Cannabis Award-winning film Dennis: The Man Who Legalized Cannabis.

CONDE NASTLloyd D'Souza - Head of Content DevelopmentNina Van Brunt - Creative DirectorJayne Roberts - Director of Unscripted DevelopmentJulia Ochsenreiter - Executive ProducerJulie Sullivan - Supervising ProducerAdam Peryer - Production ManagerThea Goddard - Associate ProducerTimothy Begley - Executive Director of SalesRobert Gearity - Executive Director of MarketingJessica Sisco - Director of Marketing

PAX LABSLaura Fogelman, Sr. Director, Communications & Public AffairsLauryn Livengood, Director, Brand MarketingMalia Madden, Communications SpecialistZoe Wilder, PR

CREWcean Vashti Jude - DirectorAndres Becerra - Director of Photography, PrincipalBrandy Bruce - Director of PhotographyGunsel Pehlivan - Director of PhotographyGiacobazzi Yanez - Director of PhotographyDominique Marro - Assistant Camera OperatorMiguel Zamora - Assistant Camera OperatorMatthew Barauskas - Assistant Camera OperatorMariya James - Covid Compliance OfficerVeronica Mammina - Covid Compliance OfficerKari Barber - Sound RecordistRussell Hamilton - EditorTyrone Rhabb - EditorBryce Aubrey - EditorDan Berlin - Assistant EditorJacqueline Nixon - GFX ArtistNicholas Lareau - ColoristMat Guido - Sound Mixer

FEATURING-Steve Hawkins, Executive Director, Marijuana Policy Project and Interim President & CEO, US Cannabis Coalition-Maj. Neill Franklin, Executive Director, Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP)-John Hudak, Senior Fellow & Deputy Director, Brookings Institution-Natalie Papillion, Director of Strategic Initiatives, Last Prisoner Project and Founder & Executive Director, The Equity Organization-Corvain Cooper, Constituent/Advisor, Last Prisoner Project & Brand Ambassador, 40Tons-Michael Thompson, Constituent, Last Prisoner Project-Evelyn LaChapelle, Program Associate, Last Prisoner Project, Heart of Cannabis Host, Vertosa, & Founder, Eighty Seven

Read more from the original source:

PAX Labs Explores the 'Human Toll' of America's War on Cannabis - Muse by Clio

Growing up in America, we are taught from a very young age that drugs are bad. In our justice system, we label drug users as criminals. We are still in the midst of a War on Drugs that began in the 1970s. Americas anti-drug-use philosophy is simple teach the young that drugs are bad, vilify drug users and treat the drug abuse epidemic as a war of law abiders versus law breakers. But what has that accomplished?

In reality, all of these tactics employed by the American government have failed miserably. Drug overdose deaths have tripled since 1990, and drug arrests have more than tripled between 1980 and 2007. Interestingly enough, the majority of these arrests are for just possessing the drug, not attempting to manufacture or sell it possession arrests outnumber sale or manufacture arrests by a ratio of five to one. And lets not forget that these arrests disproportionately target minority communities.

The conclusion to draw here is that the War on Drugs and all of the subsequent anti-drug tactics America uses are not working. Funny enough, the solution to curbing drug addiction and overdoses has been right in front of us all along. America should simply decriminalize the possession and consumption of all illicit drugs.

Note, decriminalization is not the same thing as legalization heroin and meth stores wont be popping up left and right. Decriminalization means that those who get caught with illicit substances will not face criminal charges. Instead, the accused will go before some sort of commission or judge, who will assign them a penalty and/or relief services. Decriminalizing illegal substances may seem counterintuitive, but its quite an effective method to fix Americas drug problem.

Switzerland and Portugal have been plagued with rampant drug overdoses and abuse just as America has. But instead of opting for a punishment-focused War on Drugs, these countries went in the complete opposite direction and decriminalized all drugs. And it worked. Both Switzerland and Portugal saw extremely sharp reductions in drug overdoses after decriminalizing the possession and consumption of all illicit substances. This policy greatly outperforms Americas current policy of mass arrests and little-to-no treatment by erasing the stigma that drug users are criminals and emphasizing treatment, not punishment.

When you think of a heroin user, who do you picture? Without thinking, you probably picture someone like Bubbles or Johnny Weeks from The Wire. American institutions have conditioned us to believe that heroin or other drug users are these deadbeats who live in squalor and only care about getting high. Im sure that a small subset of drug users fit this description, but I contend that this is an inaccurate representation of the people who use drugs.

Before drug decriminalization in Portugal, drug users were commonly known as drogados junkies. Now, they are commonly referred to as people who use drugs or people with addiction disorders.

Besides ameliorating Americas perception of drug users, decriminalization will allow for them to get the treatment they need instead of being vilified and thrown in jail. In Portugal, those caught possessing a personal supply of drugs could be given a warning, a small fine or be told to appear before a local commission about treatment, harm reduction and the support services that are available to them.

Emphasizing support systems and treatment is far more effective at curbing drug abuse than punishment and arrests. Switzerland opened drug consumption rooms to give people safe sites to do drugs, supervised by medical professionals. These sites are clean, eliminating any chance that someone could get an infection from dirty needles or other dirty supplies. Medical professionals supervise these sites so they can offer support, help with moderation techniques if the patients want and greatly reduce the chance of someone overdosing.

Another effect these safe sites have is that it confines drug users to designated areas, so the number of people doing drugs openly in the streets is greatly reduced. A benefit that most people dont realize is that there will be fewer drug users in the streets. And with less people on the streets doing drugs, the police force can just focus on the people doing real harm in their communities the manufacturers and sellers.

Though illicit drug users will be off the streets, tobacco smokers still roam the streets with few restrictions. Believe it or not, tobacco and its legal friend alcohol are more dangerous than any illicit drugs. In fact, these two drugs are just as addictive as any illicit drug. I see no possible justification for maintaining Americas current drug policy.

Thankfully, measures are already being taken at the state level to correct our broken system. This past November, Oregonians agreed on a ballot measure to decriminalize possession amounts of all drugs. Now if you are charged with possession of drugs, you will not be arrested. Instead, you will be connected with a host of support services like treatment, recovery, harm reduction and even housing and/or job assistance.

All of this will be funded through Oregons excess cannabis tax revenue more than $45 million and savings from no longer arresting, incarcerating or prosecuting people for drug possession. This plan looks very good on paper, and should work seamlessly just like the similar models used in Switzerland and Portugal. I strongly encourage America to adopt this model on the federal level, with the first step being the federal legalization of cannabis.

While this is just an action by one state, this is cause for optimism. This new policy from Oregon is a very good start to a new, better America one that emphasizes relief and not punishment.

Ethan Tessler is a senior and writes about issues that dont seem to be at the forefront of media attention. If you enjoyed the column, hated it or have any other thoughts, write to him at [emailprotected].

Excerpt from:

Opinion | The United States should decriminalize all drugs - University of Pittsburgh The Pitt News

Much like the war on terrorism and the war on drugs, the politics of law-making around the war on money laundering could easily be co-opted to impose Orwellian measures that risk eroding our liberties.

As the political hysteria over money laundering reaches its pinnacle, and as I have pointed out before, policy-makers are resorting to measures, oftentimes first seen in the United States, that would result in serious invasions of privacy.

Now, there is a growing push to import another Americanism into the Canadian anti-money laundering strategy: a whistleblower incentive program that would amount to bounty hunting for violations.

Implementing a program such as this would not only be unfair, it would be fundamentally ineffective.

The U.S. has had bounty hunting programs for banking law violations for some time, presented under the guise of whistleblower protections. Most notably under the Dodd-Frank Act, which encompassed a series of reforms brought about to better regulate Wall Street after the 2008 financial crisis.

An enhanced bounty program for anti-money laundering violations came into effect this January with the passage of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA). It was included as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, an omnibus bill that passed in December 2020 with bipartisan support, despite former President Trumps veto.

Under the new AMLA, a whistleblower that reports violations of anti-money laundering laws to the government that results in an enforcement action of more than US$1 million (about C$1.3 million) is entitled to a reward, calculated as a percentage of the money collected by the state.

Under Dodd-Frank, these rewards were capped at US$150,000; but the new AMLA has no cap. Instead, whistleblowers receive a reward of up to 30 per cent of the enforcement action. Given the magnitude of some recent money laundering scandals, whistleblowers could receive hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars.

The AMLA also expands the scope of who may receive a reward to people that were ineligible under Dodd-Frank, such as internal auditors, lawyers or compliance officers people whose job it is to find and correct behaviour before it turns into misconduct. It also protects whistleblowers from retaliation against their employers.

Being our closest ally and trading partner, what happens in the U.S. inevitably influences Canada, and the anti-money laundering bounty hunter program is no exception.

The Ontario Securities Commission has already implemented a similar program and recently made its first payments under the scheme, totalling $7.5 million. Likewise, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has created a bounty program for offshore tax cheating, called the Offshore Tax Informant Program, which offers informants up to 15 per cent of the tax collected relating to the non-compliance they report.

With recent calls to enhance whistleblower protections in this country, it is only a matter of time before we see more programs like this across Canada.

At first glance, these programs might seem attractive. But they suffer from three fundamental flaws.

First, they are completely reactionary, only rewarding the reporting of misconduct after it has occurred. This means that an employee who finds out about potential misconduct and does nothing, but reports it to the government later, gets a reward. Whereas an employee who stops misconduct from happening, gets nothing. This underscores that when you do things right, people wont be sure youve done anything at all.

Second, research suggests that financial incentives like these may actually decrease whistleblowing, which upends its entire purpose.

Third, and most troublingly, as Ive raised previously in relation to the CRAs offshore tax informant program, bounty programs like this create a strong incentive to provide misleading or unreliable information in the hopes of receiving an award.

It has long been understood in the criminal law context that information provided based on the hope of gaining an award or advantage particularly from someone who may themselves be implicated in the wrongdoing is unreliable. This lesson was only learned in the criminal law sphere after countless wrongful convictions.

Anti-money laundering policy-makers would be wise to look to these unfortunate experiences before extending a fundamentally flawed structure to yet another facet of our legal system.

Read more:

Bounty programs: Ineffective in the war on money laundering - The Conversation CA

During the film, we witness Holidays battle with addiction as a consequence of the abuse she experienced at the hands of the men in her life, contrasted by a tender, albeit hypothetical, relationship that unfolds with Jimmy Fletcher (Trevante Rhodes), an undercover FBN agent sent to spy on her. The script, based on a chapter from Johann Haris book Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs (Bloomsbury, 2015), was written by the Pulitzer-winning playwright Suzan-Lori Parksa student of literary legend James Baldwin. Its a great lesson in why women telling womens, particularly Black women telling Black womens stories, is imperative, explains Day. No one else will see and understand it with such depth and nuance.

Here, the 36-year-old actor describes how she got to the heart of Holiday in order to authentically embody her.

Your stage name is partly inspired by Holiday's nickname, Lady Day. Where did you first encounter her music and how has she influenced you as an artist?

My musical theatre instructor suggested I listened to Billie Holiday when I was 11 and looking for singers to study. I remember thinking, Ugh, I don't want to study a male singerI don't know who this dude Billy Holiday is. [laughs] Of course, when I heard Sugar, I knew Billie was a woman. Her voice, her tone, her phrasing was nothing like the great singers I was used to such as Whitney Houston, Aretha [Franklin], Gladys [Knight], Patti [LaBelle] or Chaka [Khan]. It reminded me of a train thats about to come off the tracks, but never quite does. From then on, I was hooked.

When did you learn about Holiday being persecuted by the FBN and what was happening in your own life at that time?

I was 19 or 20 when I really understood how the government tried to silence her. I was reconciling being a Black woman in the US, and through reading about and listening to Billie, I realised there had been multiple wars on drugs. We still have drugs, but we dont have Billie Holiday. We still have drugs, but we dont have [civil-rights activist] Medgar Evers or any of these great Black influencers. And then it crystallises: the war on drugs is a war on us. The war on drugs was crafted to take Billie down.

Blood on the leaves, blood at the root, always stood out to me. Damu means blood in Swahili and in my song I put damu at these roots because I saw it as life soaking into the roots of the trees, fertilising, strengthening and creating healthy fruit. Its about connecting the diaspora.

What do you think are the most widespread misconceptions of Holiday?

I hate it when people say she was a complicated figure because that's a polite way of saying she was difficult or troubled. What the hell is complicated about her? She was a Black queer woman trying to live peacefully and freely and truthfully. But unfortunately, she was living in the 1920s to 1950s, so its really the era that was complicated. The government going after Billie for singing Strange Fruit; men stealing from and physically abusing her; being raped at 14; her father dying [as a result] of Jim Crow lawsthats complicated!

Meeting people in recovery from addiction was an important part of your character study. What did you learn from this experience?

When we talk about drugs, everyone thinks of parties, but with heroin, you're trying to escape trauma. From spending time with recovering addicts, I learned that youre trying to get well; youre trying to put the battery in your back so, in Billies case, she could go on stage and sing. Theres a line in the movie where she says, [in reference to Strange Fruit] Ive got to be pretty high to sing that one. Its no wonder she needed some kind of assistance. Drug addiction needs to be a mental health conversation.

More:

Billie Holiday was the godmother of civil rights: Andra Day on playing the first lady of blues - VOGUE India