Category Archives: War On Drugs

In the race to the top, there is one area where America shines above all others incarceration. In October 2013, the incarceration rate of the United States was by far the highest in the world, at 716 per 100,000 of the national population. While the United States represents about 4.4 percent of the world's population, it houses around 22 percent of the world's prisoners.

In the last 40 years, the U.S. incarceration rate has increased upward of 500 percent despite crime rates decreasing nationally. Much of that growth was driven by the war on drugs, combined with mandatory minimum and other draconian sentencing laws. Almost 50 percent of state prisoners (in 2006) and over 90 percent of federal prisoners (in 2008) were incarcerated for non-violent offenses.

There is scant evidence the war on drugs was effective. All this incarceration comes at enormous expense to the taxpayer, while we've allowed for-profit prison systems, which have a vested self-interest in jailing folks, to blossom. Meanwhile, prisons have become inhumane warehouses for the mentally ill. It's a national disgrace.

Despite opposition from such conservative voices as Sen. Rand Paul and the Koch brothers, who favor incarceration policy reform, Attorney General Jeff Sessions wants to return to the war on drugs. He is not thinking straight.

Fritz Walker

South Whitehall Township

Originally posted here:

War on drugs proven to be ineffective - Allentown Morning Call

Attorney General Jeff Sessions jump-started the war on drugs in a recent memo to federal prosecutors, ordering them to charge and pursue the toughest penalties possible, even for low-level offenses.

The new policy is expected to increase the prison population and punish minority groups, particularly African Americans, that have been disproportionately subjected to mandatory minimums for minor drug crimes.

But theres a looming, and less obvious, side effect of this new directive: The White Houses tough on crime approach is almost certainly going to exacerbate the spread of infectious diseases like HIV.

In a new systematic review of 106 studies on criminalization and HIV, published this week in The Lancet HIV, researchers found the vast majority of studies (more than 80 percent) show criminalization is associated with harmful effects for those targeted by the laws as well as their communities: increasing drug use, increasing the use of shared needles for drug injections, and driving up HIV infections, among other troubling effects.

This disconnect between the evidence and the White Houses new policy has shocked the public health community, said Stefan Baral, one of the study authors and an associate professor of epidemiology at the Bloomberg School of Public Health. The evidence is overwhelming, he added. The Sessions memo is just incredibly sad.

During the Obama era, former Attorney General Eric Holder advised federal prosecutors to do the opposite of what Sessions is suggesting now and avoid mandatory minimums for low-level, nonviolent drug offenses.

Between 2008 and 2013, HIV rates declined in the US, in part because of a drop-off among injection drug users.

One big reason why, Baral explained: Criminalization drives injection drug users underground, making them more likely to share needles and helping diseases like HIV spread more rapidly among users.

Almost invariably, when you increase policing, people are more hidden in terms of how they are injecting, said Baral. On the other hand, he added, Its a global truth that when someone who is using drugs has access to a clean needle they will use it.

Thats exactly what happened in rural Indiana when Vice President Mike Pence was the governor. He first resisted pleas from public health officials for the state to provide clean needles during an out-of-control 2015 HIV outbreak among injection drug users. (The evidence suggests clean needle exchanges reduce the rate of HIV transmission among drug users.) More than two months into the outbreak, Pence changed his mind. The HIV rate in Indiana dropped precipitously and the needle exchange is seen as the major reason for the turnaround.

Policies that lead to mass incarceration contribute to infectious disease spread in other ways: When you have people coming in and out of prison, peoples sexual patterns are disrupted, Duke researcher Susan Reif told me. Prisons have higher rates of STDs, and when prisoners return to the community, they may bring with them any diseases they picked up while incarcerated not just HIV. Incarceration is a significant driver of HIV and STDs," Reif summed up.

The Obama-era efforts to reduce mandatory minimums enjoyed broad bipartisan support. And thats part of the reason why the new push to undo that work has garnered criticism from both sides of the aisle. As Eric Holder said of the new policy, [Its] not tough on crime. It is dumb on crime.

Republicans such as Rand Paul have also been speaking out against Sessionss backward approach. We should be treating our nation's drug epidemic for what it is a public health crisis, he wrote in a CNN op-ed.

Instead of throwing drug users in prison, Baral, the epidemiologist, would like to see the White House enact policies based on evidence creating programs for safe needle exchanges, for example, and expanding treatment options for addicts.

We are at a watershed moment turning back these improvements, he added. [The Sessions memo] is a clear move back to putting more and more and more people in jail, which is just something that will a) drive more people underground, [and] b) have no positive health consequences for anybody.

Follow this link:

The White House's new war on drugs could drive up the HIV rate - Vox

A little-noticed document issued by President Trump has put advocates of medical marijuana on edge, raising questions about the long-term security of programs authorized in 29 states and the District that have broad public backing.

In a signing statement that accompanied Trumps signature on the bill passed this month to keep the government open, the president noted a handful of objections on legal grounds. One was to a provision that prohibits his administration from interfering with state-run medical marijuana programs.

White House aides indicated that none of Trumps objections to Congresss work signaled immediate policy changes. But given how vocal Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been in opposition to relaxing marijuana restrictions, those who support the burgeoning industry are worried about what could come next.

It just creates a lot of uncertainty, and that uncertainty is deeply concerning for patients and providers, said Michael Collins, deputy director of the Drug Policy Alliance, an organization that has sought to roll back the nations war on drugs. We had thought medical marijuana wasnt really in play in terms of a crackdown.

Such concerns are being voiced more broadly about the direction of marijuana policy under the new leadership at the Justice Department.

(Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)

Sessions last week directed federal prosecutors to get significantly tougher on drug defendants than they had been under the Obama administration. And a task force launched by Sessions is looking at changes in enforcement, particularly regarding marijuana, a drug that remains illegal at the federal level despite significant movement in numerous states in recent years to loosen restrictions.

The eight states that have legalized marijuana for recreational use could be at greater risk for federal intervention than those that have approved only the dispensing of medical cannabis or cannabis-infused products to patients with a doctors recommendation.

As a candidate for president, Trump repeatedly voiced support for medical marijuana, a concept that has been increasingly embraced by fellow Republicans at the state level. Of the 29 states that have authorized programs, Trump prevailed in last years election over Democrat Hillary Clinton in nine of them.

Meanwhile, a Quinnipiac poll last month found that 94 percent of Americans including 90 percent of Republicans supported allowing adults to legally use marijuana for medical purposes if their doctors prescribe it.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said this year that he expects states to be subject to greater enforcement of federal laws against marijuana use, but he also said Trump sees a big difference between use of marijuana for medical purposes and for recreational purposes.

Sessions, however, said at an appearance in Richmond in March that medical marijuana has been hyped, maybe too much.

A Justice Department spokesman declined to discuss what steps might be taken related to medical marijuana but said the provision in the spending bill is of concern to officials.

The Department of Justice must be in a position to use all laws available to combat the transnational drug organizations and dangerous drug traffickers who threaten American lives, said spokesman Ian Prior, who wouldnt discuss the issue further.

Justin Strekal, political director for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said the May 5 signing statement is troubling, even if a federal crackdown is not in the offing, because it could have a chilling effect on a nascent industry.

Of particular concern, he said, is the impact it could have on investors in dispensaries in states where programs are just coming on line. Prosecution of a single business in one state could have a devastating impact in that regard, he added.

The provision in question, which has been part of federal law since late 2014, prohibits the Justice Department from spending money to interfere with state medical marijuana programs. It was co-authored by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), who, by his own description, is a very strong supporter of Trump.

I will treat this provision consistently with my constitutional responsibility to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, Trump wrote in the signing statement.

Signing statements became prevalent under President George W. Bush and have often been used to preserve objections rather than to signal new action.

President Barack Obama continued the practice, routinely citing provisions in spending bills that he said conflicted with authority granted to him under the Constitution.

Trump also objected on constitutional grounds to several other sections of the first spending bill he signed, including one related to a program that helps historically black colleges and universities get low-cost construction loans. That prompted an outcry from African American lawmakers, prompting Trump to release a statement about his commitment to HBCUs.

Tom Angell, founder of Marijuana Majority, said comments from Trump and the Justice Department on medical marijuana dont necessarily mean a crackdown is coming, but its a concerning signal.

Essentially, [Trump is] saying he reserves the right to ignore this congressionally approved provision, Angell said.

If the administration moves in that direction, it wont be without a fight, Rohrabacher said.

The congressman, who has used cannabis himself to ease pain from severe arthritis in his shoulders caused by years of surfing, said he is confident his side would prevail in court because Congress clearly has the power of the purse.

Rohrabacher said it appears that members of the administration are working to reposition Trump on the issue of medical marijuana.

I think there are a lot of people running around trying to paint the president into a corner on this, Rohrabacher said, adding that he is eager to talk to Trump about it directly.

In August 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled a similar provision passed by Congress prevented the Justice Department from spending money on prosecutions in states where medical marijuana was legal, as long as those being prosecuted abided by state law.

More broadly, James Cole, a deputy attorney general in the Obama administration, had directed prosecutors to enforce all federal drug laws even in places that had legalized marijuana but said they should look to states regulatory systems to determine whether their intervention was necessary.

Cole wrote that federal authorities should essentially stay out of states that had robust regulatory systems in place.

Coles memo is among the policies now being actively reviewed by the new leadership at the Justice Department.

The issue of medical marijuana will need to be revisited by Congress in coming months. The provision sponsored by Rohrabacher expires on Sept. 30, at the end of the federal fiscal year, and would have to be adopted again to stay on the books.

Emily Guskin contributed to this report.

Read the original here:

Jeff Sessions's war on drugs has medical marijuana advocates worried - Washington Post

On New Years Day, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen launched a six-month crackdown on the drug scourge that he said had become an increasing grievance for the countrys people.

His announcement came shortly after a state visit by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who in 2016 launched a violent anti-drugs campaign in his own country that went on to kill 7,000 people in seven months.

Given that Dutertes crackdown was suspended after rogue police officers kidnapped and killed a South Korean businessman, it is perhaps not surprising that Hun Sen, after the first spike in detentions in February, rushed to assure Cambodians that his campaign would not be bloody.

And, sure enough, while Dutertes crackdown made headlines the world over, Hun Sens has escaped such scrutiny. Yet while it is true that Cambodias crackdown has avoided the kind of violence associated with Dutertes campaign, that has not allayed fears of serious abuses.

Such crackdowns are only one aspect of the regions struggle against drugs ministers and delegates from six Mekong countries (Cambodia, China, Laos, Vietnam, Myanmar and Thailand) agreed a regional drug policy with representatives from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime last Wednesday but they are its most visible.

Phil Robertson, deputy director of Human Rights Watchs Asia division, said that while Duterte had unleashed police and vigilantes to shoot thousands of small-scale drug dealers or users on the streets, Cambodian authorities were arresting more drug users and shoving them into woefully overcrowded prisons.

Its the difference between sudden human rights abuses, and gradual but deadly rights abuses, said Robertson. In Cambodia, its only the families and the lawyers who see how bad the prison conditions are for the thousands of people in pretrial detention.

Even before Hun Sens crackdown, Cambodia had been criticised for the conditions in its prisons for practices such as the involuntary detention of drug users in rehabilitation centres and because many people serve entire prison sentences before their cases have even reached trial.

Such delays mean the prison population is heaving. As of December, before the crackdown started, 8,902 of the 22,000 people in prison were being held for drug offences.

Robertson said Hun Sens campaign was having an alarming side effect, as it had driven drug use further underground, encouraging addicts to hide and reuse needles, putting them at greater risk of HIV. But, again, he says, thats not seen by many or particularly well known.

Sithat Sem, drug programme manager in Phnom Penh for the NGO Friends International, a Cambodia-based social enterprise, said users were still accessing services, but requesting fewer syringes so as not to draw police attention. Drug users had also begun to divide into smaller groups or live alone, hiding in their community or moving to other places, he said.

All this means we have more constraints on finding them and reaching them with our services, he said. We are concerned about the impact this will have on targets for HIV elimination in 2025 and 90-90-90 Targets in 2020, which the national government along with UN has committed to.

Under the 90-90-90 initiative, by 2020, 90 per cent of people living with HIV will know their HIV status; 90 per cent of people diagnosed with HIV will get continuous antiretroviral therapy; and 90 per cent of people receiving antiretroviral therapy have viral suppression.

The prevalence of Aids among Cambodians who inject drugs is 25 per cent. The needle and syringe programme, HIV testing and education are among the most important approaches to preventing new cases among this at-risk group.

Cambodian officials said the governments crackdown was a response to a nearly 30 per cent increase in the number of documented addicts to 2016. But critics attacked this as pre-election propaganda: communal elections are scheduled for June, to coincide with the end of the anti-drug campaign.

For some critics, Hun Sens crusade is intended as a distraction from increasing political repression. In February the prime ministers long-time opponent Sam Rainsy was forced to abandon the leadership of the Cambodian National Rescue Party in the face of a threat of a ban against any political party whose leader is convicted of a crime.

Watch: a close-up view of Dutertes war on drugs

Sam Rainsy had been convicted on a series of defamation charges, and has lived in France since 2015 to avoid punishment.

According to David Harding, an independent drug expert with a decade of experience in Cambodia, the focus of the war on drugs has been on both demand and supply, but, he said, there is little evidence to show that there has been an impact on traffic or cultivation.

Mass arrests, he said, just transferred the issue of drug use from the community to the penal system, which he said was already overstretched, and served no long- or even medium-term purpose except for moving the problem out of sight and appearing to be doing something, for populist political gain.

Read more here:

Why are abuse claims in Cambodia's war on drugs being ignored ... - South China Morning Post

A psychoactive substance is a chemical which changes brain function and results in alterations in perception, mood, consciousness or behavior. Societies mitigate the health, social, and economic consequences of the use and misuse of psychoactive substances such as alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, opioids, amphetamines, cocaine, tranquillizers and sleeping pills in a variety of ways with varying degrees of success. Their effects on population health, however, are often overshadowed by our fascination with the direct effects of substance misuse on individuals [e.g. recent rise in the opioid death rate due to adulteration of the drug supply with fentanyl and its analogues]. Currently, western societies manage illegal psychoactive substances largely through prohibition and criminalization and legal drugs, like tobacco and alcohol, through regulation, restricted availability and price control. The laws and systems initially introduced to control these substances reflected the times and prevalent issues of the day, but no longer reflect current scientific knowledge concerning substance-related harms to individuals, families, or communities. There is growing evidence, awareness, and acceptance that prohibition and criminalization are not reducing drug use and associated harms. The war on drugs has been lost. Furthermore, it is clear that drug prohibition engenders an environment that fuels the growth of illegal markets, organized crime, violent injuries, and the deaths of users, dealers, and police. It also has unintended public health consequences such as accelerating the spread of HIV and hepatitis C, and increasing overdose deaths from black market sales of extremely potent and contaminated products. An alternative to prohibition and criminalization does exist in a public health approach which is based on the principles of social justice, attention to human rights and equity, evidence-informed policy and practice, and addressing and improving the underlying determinants of health. Such an approach espouses health promotion and the prevention of death, disease, injury, and disability as its central tenet. It bases its initiatives on evidence of what has worked or shows promise of working. Worldwide psychoactive substance use is estimated at 2 billion alcohol users, 1.3 billion smokers and 185 million illicit drug users, including 147 million cannabis users. Amongst the many preventable factors responsible for the global burden of disease, tobacco, alcohol and illicit drugs comprised 12.9 per cent of all deaths worldwide in 2010. Looking at the percentage of preventable years of life lost, it has been estimated that they account for 9.1 per cent. Tobacco is responsible for 8.7 per cent of all deaths worldwide and 3.7 per cent of total preventable years of life lost (Disability Adjusted Life Years). Alcohol causes 3.8 per cent of all deaths and 4.5 per cent of preventable years of life lost. You might be surprised to learn that all the illicit psychoactive drugs combined (cannabis, opioids, cocaine, amphetamines, prescription medications misused, others) only result in 0.4 per cent of worldwide deaths and 0.9 per cent of preventable years of life lost. The health burden from psychoactive substance use is higher in the developed world. Deaths from psychoactive drug use are predominantly male, ranging from 80 per cent for tobacco and illicit drug use to 90% for alcohol. As more men quit smoking tobacco, the female death rate from smoking is expected to surpass that of males in the near future. One of the differences amongst these substances is that they tend to affect different age groups. Illicit drug use causes harm earliest in life, alcohol in middle age, while 70 per cent of tobacco deaths occur after the age of 60. It is time for us to focus our public health attention on the more common preventable causes of disease such as alcohol, tobacco and obesity. As Pogo once so wisely said We have met the enemy and he is us.

Continue reading here:

DES COLOHAN: The war on drugs has been lost - The Guardian

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has said over and over again that he sees the uptick in violent crime in a few major cities in the US as the start of a "dangerous trend." Let's take a look at the numbers. (Daron Taylor/The Washington Post)

Attorney General Jeff Sessions wants to reverse the policies of the Obama administration, by prosecuting more cases involving guns and drugs, and seeking more mandatory minimum sentences. John Pfaff is a professor of law at Fordham University, and the author of Locked In: The True Causes of Mass Incarceration and How to Achieve Real Reform, a new book on Americas prison system. I interviewed him via email about the causes of incarceration, and the likely consequences of Sessionss policy shift.

Many people have argued that the war on drugs has led to the great increase in the prison population. You argue that this theory doesnt explain most of the increase. Why not?

At its simplest, its just a matter of numbers. Over half of all people in state prison are there for violent crimes, and over half the growth in state prisons since 1980 is due to locking up people for violent offenses. As of 2015, only about 16percent of those in prison are there for drugs crimes. Of course, its true that drug prohibition can cause non-drug crimes, ranging from theft to fund a (more-expensive) habit to murder over a drug deal gone bad, so not everyone in prison as a result of the war on drugs is there for a drug crime. But studies suggest that ending the war on drugs would have complicated, off-setting impacts. For example, there would be fewer deaths over drug deals but more murders committed by people while abusing (some but not all) drugs.

There would be no more people arrested for selling drugs and almost everyone in prison for drugs is there for dealing, not possession but many of those who currently sell would still struggle to find gainful employment and would thus likely turn to other forms of crime to make ends meet.

One problem that both scholars and reformers face is that they think of the justice system as just that a system with a coherent logic, design and goals. Youve argued that its something much more messy a kind of Kafkaesque ecology, in which unintended outcomes happen all the time. How does that ecology work, and how has it led to more people in prison?

The fairly incoherent way we divide responsibility across cities (which run police departments), counties (which elect prosecutors and judges and pay for jails), and states (which fund prisons and whose governors control the parole process) leads to all sorts of moral hazard risks by haphazardly separating cost and benefits. My favorite example is that county-elected prosecutors face no limits on how many people they can send to state-funded prison. Prosecutors get all the tough-on-crime credibility from sending people to prison, but their counties bear none of the financial cost. In fact, its cheaper for county prosecutors to charge someone with a more-serious felony (which sends the defendant to state prison) than with a lesser misdemeanor (which lands the defendant in county-funded jail or probation).

Electing prosecutors at the county level also creates a dangerous split in costs and benefits within the county, which helps explain racial disparities in punishment. In more-urban counties, the whiter, more suburban areas have a lot of political power, and they likely play an outsized role in electing the prosecutor, who in turn tends to enforce the law in poorer, more minority urban areas. Those suburbanites feel the benefits of reduced crime but few if any of the costs, which are borne by a population that they are divorced from socially, culturally, economically and geographically, in no small part because of our history of red-lining and other forms of racial exclusion. We should accordingly expect prosecutors to pay too little attention to the costs of aggressive enforcement.

One key group of actors in this ecology are prosecutors you argue that their incentives are one of the key factors driving the increased prison population. Why is this so?

At least since crime and arrests started to drop in the early 1990s, the main engine driving prison growth has been an increased willingness on the part of prosecutors to charge more and more arrestees with felony charges. We lack almost any data on prosecutors, so its hard to say with any certainty why this change happened.

I have a lot of plausible theories, but right now the one that seems like the most important is a boring-but-critical story of employment. Between the early 1970s and 1990, as crime rose steadily, the number of prosecutors rose from 17,000 to 20,000; between 1990 and 2008, as crime dropped, we expanded the number of prosecutors by three times as much, to 30,000. Theres no evidence Ive seen that individual prosecutors are more aggressive today than in the 1990s or even 1970s. We just have a lot more of them who need to justify their positions. We arrest over 10 million people every year: There are plenty of cases for them to take if they need to.

Jeff Sessions has just announced a tough on crime order, intended to push prosecutors to seek longer sentences. How consequential is this order going to be, and for whom?

When it comes to federal policy, its important to realize that the federal system is fairly small, holding only 12percent of U.S. prisoners, and federal policies cannot apply to the states. So while Sessionss new rule may cause an increase in the size of the federal prison (where, unlike the states, about half the inmates are in for drug crimes), its direct impact on the states will be nil, and thus its direct impact on the overall U.S. incarceration will be slight.

More concerning is any sort of bully pulpit effect: Will Sessionss tough on crime and Trumps carnage in America rhetoric shape how local county prosecutors use their vast discretion? Theres no rigorous data on this, but my sense from the snippets of data we have is that any such effect will be slight. Prosecutors, as far as I can tell, focus very much on local conditions and local politics, and peoples attitudes towards crime appear to be fairly local. There are a lot of way prison reform can fail or falter in the years ahead, but I dont think the tough talk coming out of D.C. right now will matter much.

See the original post:

Jeff Sessions's war on drugs will be less consequential than many believe. Here's why. - Washington Post

Sen. Kamala Harris on Tuesday took Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions to task for ordering federal prosecutors to crack down on drug offenders last week.

Harris (D-Calif.) was speaking at the Center for American Progress Ideas Conference in Washington, one of a host of potential 2020 presidentialcandidates invited to address progressive thought leaders on what the next priorities should be for the Democratic Party.

Harris started her career in the Alameda County district attorneys office at the height of the crack epidemic. She said there were so many nonviolent offenders being charged then that prosecutors might have only five minutes to review a casefile before appearing in court.

"I saw the war on drugs up close, and let me tell you, the war on drugs was an abject failure," Harris said. "It offered taxpayers a bad return on investment, it was bad for public safety, it was bad for budgets and our economy,and it was bad for people of color and those struggling to make ends meet."

In a memo last week, Sessions instructed federal prosecutors to charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offensein drug cases, even when that would trigger mandatory minimum sentencing.

Harris,who was also San Francisco district attorney before being elected California attorney general, said, This administration and Jeff Sessions want to take us back to the dark ages."

The Justice Department has also indicated that it may aggressively go after marijuana users again, even in states like California that have legalized it. Under the Obama administration, federal officials largely deferred to local policy.

California needs federal help dealing with international criminal organizations and human trafficking, not going after Grandmas medicinal marijuana, she said.

Harris said the United States needs to stop treating marijuana use as a crime.

We need to do the smart thing and the right thing and finally decriminalize marijuana, she said.

Afterward, her staff emphasized that Harris wants marijuana to be reclassified as a Schedule II drug by the Drug Enforcement Administration, which opens the door to approval for medical use.

Schedule II drugs have medicinal uses. Schedule I drugs, as marijuana is currently listed, have the highest criminal penalties for use and are considered as having no medical use.

Harris said criminal justice reform should be equitable and U.S.drug policy should treat addiction as a disease rather than as a crime.

This is not a black and brown issue, this is not an urban and blue state issue. This has always been an American issue, Harris said. We need this administration to understand that if they care about the opioid crisis in rural America as they say they do, they have also got to care about the drug-addicted young man in Chicago or East L.A."

Read the rest here:

Sen. Kamala Harris to Trump administration: Start a war on drug abuse, don't restart the war on drugs - Los Angeles Times

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) sharply criticized Attorney General Jeff Sessionson Tuesday for rolling back drug sentencing reforms, arguing that doing so threatens our system of justice.

Sessions instructed federal prosecutors last week to take the most aggressive approach possible against federal criminal defendants, including low-level drug offenders. The memo, a sharp reversal from policies implemented under former President Barack Obama, is likely to result in more jail time for drug offenders and an increase in the federal prison population.

Sessions memo had effectively declare[d] the reviving of the war on drugs, Harris said at the Center for American Progress Ideas Conference in Washington, D.C.

Instead of going after drug cartels and violent crime and major drug traffickers, he is calling for a renewed focus on what is essentially the neighborhood street-level dealer, she said. Instead of addressing the core issues of addiction and getting folks into treatment, were going to overcrowd and build new prisons. That is not justice. That is not smart on crime. And I believe we have to stop this.

Harris, who last week called for Sessions resignation over his role in the firing of FBI Director James Comey, accused the attorney general of holding outdated and out-of-touch views that will take us back to the dark ages. She argued that instead of pursuing harsh sentencing policies that will disproportionately hurt communities of color, the administration should put its resources toward addressing addiction and combatting the opioid crisis.

We need a national drug policy that finally treats substance abuse not as a crime to be punished but as a disease to be treated, she said. We need to build on reforms instead of reviving mandatory minimums or boosting bottom lines for public prisons. And we need to fund, not defund, the Office of National Drug Control Policy. And we need this administration to understand that if they care about the opioid crisis in rural America as they say they do, they also have to care about the drug-addicted man in Chicago or East L.A.

Zach Gibson via Getty Images

Harris was Californias attorney general prior to serving as a U.S. senator. During her tenure, she advocated for keeping low-level offenders out of jail and frequently pointed out how the war on drugs had failed. She also spearheaded the creation of an online database cataloging statistics on arrests, police killings and in-custody deaths, andexpressed support for a bipartisan effort to reform the criminal justice system.

However,Harris drew some criticism during her tenure for not taking a bold enough stance on some drug policy reform issues. Sentencing reform advocates in the state noticed Harrisrelative silence on Proposition 47, a 2014 ballot initiative to reduce most nonviolent crimes to misdemeanors and to help reduce the states prison population.

And during her 2014 campaignfor re-election as attorney general, she declined to take a position on marijuana legalization, even as her Republican opponent spoke out in favor of it. She also didnt speak out on the successful 2016 ballot measure in California to legalize recreational marijuana, due to her offices role in analyzing ballot initiatives, but described legal weed as inevitable.

She now favors decriminalizing the drug, but has not co-sponsored recently introducedlegislation to regulate the substance like alcohol.

Read the original post:

Kamala Harris Condemns Jeff Sessions For 'Reviving' The War On Drugs - HuffPost

Washington Post

Sen. Harris: War on drugs an 'abject failure' Washington Post May 16, 2017 12:27 PM EDT - Sen. Kamala Harris spoke about prosecution and sentencing for drug crimes at the Center for American Progress Ideas Conference on May 16. (The Washington Post). May 16, 2017 12:27 PM EDT - Sen. Kamala Harris spoke ...

See the article here:

Sen. Harris: War on drugs an 'abject failure' - Washington Post

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions tough-on-crime approach has irked critics, who fear it may undo years of progress on sentencing, particularly for non-violent drug offenses.

Sessions last week issued a memo to federal prosecutors telling them to pursue the most serious, provable offenses in charging and sentencing. The memo essentially directs federal prosecutors to throw the book at criminal offenders when they can, which is a contrast to the previous administrations stance on criminal justice.

See: Expect greater enforcement of marijuana laws under trump, Spicer says

Under former Attorney General Eric Holder, federal prosecutors were advised against taking the most severe course of action for certain low-level, non-violent drug cases. The action was intended to avoid triggering unnecessary mandatory minimum sentences that disproportionately affect minorities. Now, marijuana legalization advocates, among other groups, are up in arms.

Sessions is taking the country back to the 1980s by escalating the failed policies of the drug war, said Michael Collins, deputy director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, in a statement.

About one in five, or 21% of the U.S. population, live in a state where using marijuana is legal, but the substance is still federally banned and labeled a Schedule I drug along with heroin and LSD.

Also read: Marijuana industry could be worth 5$50 billion annually by 2026

With 60% of Americans in support of legalizing marijuana and roughly 70%, according to a Quinnipiac poll, opposed to the federal government interfering in states where marijuana is legal, some in the industry predict that Sessions action will create major political backlash.

On Tuesday, the Drug Policy Alliance held a rally against Sessions war-on-drug-like policies outside of the Justice Department, that included members of advocacy group The Sentencing Project, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Open Society Policy Center, to name a few.

See also: How the marijuana industry is aiming to undo the harm caused by the war on drugs

Rand Paul, Republican U.S. Senator from Kentucky, on Monday penned an opinion piece for CNN, condemning Sessions policy change.

We should be treating our nations drug epidemic for what it is a public health crisis, not an excuse to send people to prison and turn a mistake into a tragedy, Senator Paul wrote. Mandatory sentencing automatically imposes a minimum number of years in prison for specific crimes usually drug related.

This isnt about legalizing drugs. It is about making the punishment more fitting and not ruining more lives.

Under Sessions directive, the change in how federal government will charge and sentence criminal offenders will be felt most by drug offenders, but it may also provide a clue as to how Sessions Justice Department plans to crack down on crime.

Holder, last week, called Sessions decision unwise and ill-informed.

Read also: Jeff Sessions is not wrong about addiction, but evidence says heroin is still more dangerous than marijuana

The policy announced today is not tough on crime. It is dumb on crime, he wrote in a statement. It is an ideologically motivated, cookie-cutter approach that has only been proven to generate unfairly long sentences that are often applied indiscriminately and do little to achieve long-term public safety.

Holders approach, while avoiding tough sentencing for certain drug offenses, did not change the policy for charging and sentencing for other federal crimes, and the most serious crimes were still treated with severe sentencing. But what Sessions is essentially saying is: We want to be tough on everything.

Sessions says the push to increase prosecutions is part of a plan to increase public safety. And there is an argument that this gives prosecutors more authority and more freedom to threaten criminal offenders with the most severe charge when bargaining plea deals.

The problem is federal criminal prosecutions have declined for the past five years, hitting the lowest level in nearly two decades, while at the same time the number of violent crimes in the U.S. has been on a downward trend for more than two decades, according to data from Pew Research.

And while conditions in federal prisons have improved in the past few years, they are still overcrowded.

The majority of people locked in federal prison arent even violent offenders, according to Marc Mauer, executive director of The Sentencing Project. And half of the people in federal prison are incarcerated on drug convictions.

Dont miss: War on drugs spokesman now supports marijuana legalization

This move will not only exacerbate overcrowding in prison populations, it will be costly and divert needed resources from prevention and treatment, Mauer said.

See the original post here:

Jeff Sessions' new policy is a 'dumb' and 'ill-informed' continuation of the war on drugs, critics say - MarketWatch