New Drug Law - Your Thoughts?

[Lee]

H.R. 1528, Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005, is one of the worst drug war bills that Congress has ever considered.

Among other things, HR 1528:

--Virtually eliminates the ability of federal judges to give sentences below the minimum sentence recommended by federal sentencing guidelines, essentially creating a mandatory minimum sentence for every federal offense (including both drug and non-drug offenses).

--Expands the federal “three strikes and you’re out” law to include new offenses, including mandating life imprisonment (with no possibility of parole) for anyone convicted a third time under the RAVE Act.

--Mandates a 10-year minimum sentence for anyone 21 or older that gives marijuana or others drugs to someone under 18 (i.e. a 21 year old college students gives a joint to his 17-year old brother). A second offense would be life in prison.

--Expands what is considered to be a “drug-free” school zone to include almost any place in an urban area, and increases penalties for selling or distributing drugs in that area. (The result will be enhanced penalties for people in inner cities, while people in rural and suburban areas get less time for the same offense).

--Mandates a 5-year minimum sentence for any person that commits a drug trafficking offense near the presence of a person under 18 or in a place where such person resides for any period of time. The sentence is 10 years if they are parent. (I.e. a mother that sells her neighbor a joint will get a 10-year minimum sentence, even if her kids were at school at the time).

--Creates a new offense for persons who witness or learn about certain drug offenses that fail to report the drug offender to the police within 24 hours or fail to provide full assistance to the police in tracking and prosecuting the offender. Offenses that would get someone a 2-year minimum sentence, including failing to report a neighbor that is storing or selling drugs when that neighbor has kids, failing to report anyone that gives a joint to someone under the age of 21, and failing to report a college student that is selling marijuana on a college campus.

--Mandates a 5-year minimum sentence for any person that offers, solicits, encourages, or induces a person enrolled in drug treatment, or previously enrolled in drug treatment, to purchase, possess or receive drugs.

--Makes it a federal crime to provide "drug paraphernalia" to anyone. While the goal is to make it a crime - punishable by up to three years in prison - to give someone a bong as a birthday present, it would also make it a federal crime to provide someone with sterile syringes (except where it is explicitly authorized by local or state law). If enacted, it would essentially criminalize many needle exchange programs.

The full text of H.R. 1528 can be viewed by going to http://thomas.loc.gov/ , entering “HR1528” in the search box, checking the “enter bill number” circle under the search box, and clicking “search”.

http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/a...asp?item=26179

Some people are saying this is to harsh.

Im of the beleif it isnt.

If you break the law, then you have to accept any potential consequences, including prison time.

Regards,

Lee

[longboardjim]

i am not a lawyer and/or drug user! , but it looks as though someone will be doing some "hard-time!" , and i thought i had problems now with my "straight guys" and their "DUI's"

sincerely ~ ..."take one pill now! , and i'll get back to you in 10 years!"...

[djdez]

It's just another example of how the government is wasting our tax dollars on 'The War On Drugs'. It can not and should not be won.

The urban drug offense is exceptionally aggregious as it is clearly focused on minority groups.

[Lee]

It can not and should not be won.

Why shouldnt it?

Regards,

Lee

[djdez]

Why shouldnt it?

Regards,

Lee

First, it is won - than it would have cost way too much.

Second, I'm a libertarian. I believe that victimless crimes shouldn't be crimes. This ranges from gambling to prostitution to drugs.

[Lee]

First, it is won - than it would have cost way too much.

Second, I'm a libertarian. I believe that victimless crimes shouldn't be crimes. This ranges from gambling to prostitution to drugs.

Using drugs is a victimless crime?

Since when? You do realize countless people get killed because of things like drug trafficking, dealing, use etc etc each and every year right?

Regards,

Lee

[BDBionic]

Mandatory minimums are yet another way the leg. and exec. branches try and interfere with the jud.

What... judges are now incapable of determining sentences according to the circumstances of each individual case and appropriately executing justice? That's garbage. It's no business of the legislative and executive branches to dictate the kinds of sentences the courts should hand out in cases like this.

We're already quite swiftly sliding down that slippery slope and when judges are being told how they should rule and what kind of sentences they should hand out and are having their own discretion and authority overruled and removed, it's not a good thing for anyone.

[Lee]

Mandatory It's no business of the legislative and executive branches to dictate the kinds of sentences the courts should hand out in cases like this.

Why not? Are there not already minimum sentences for a range of crimes already on the books? 3 strikes and you are out as i recall.

Regards,

Lee

[BDBionic]

Using drugs is a victimless crime?

Since when? You do realize countless people get killed because of things like drug trafficking, dealing, use etc etc each and every year right?

Regards,

Lee

Using drugs and trafficking in drugs are two different things. Drug dealing is illegal. Drug trafficking is illegal. Crimes related to drug trafficking and distribution are already illegal. But none of those are the same thing as the actual use of drugs.

So Joe has a valid point. The only victim of the crime of using drugs is the drug user themselves. They're their own victim, and for them the justice system should stress treatment over punishment.

If someone's killed as a result of drug trafficking, that's not necessarily a crime being committed by the drug user. At some point in the chain, does the demand created by those using drugs play a part in crimes committed? Sure. But to think the drug user is solely responsible for all crimes related to drugs is naive.

Do we hold alcohol companies responsible for drunk driving accidents or drunken date rape? No. The individual who commits a crime while drunk is the person held responsible. We draw a distinction there. As should be the case with drugs. To focus so intently on punishment upon harsher punishment ignores the effectiveness of treatment in dealing with drug-related societal ills.

[djdez]

Using drugs is a victimless crime?

Since when? You do realize countless people get killed because of things like drug trafficking, dealing, use etc etc each and every year right?

Regards,

Lee

Murder is illegal and should stay illegal. Robbing someones home because you need to get your next fix is illegal and should stay illegal.

As Brian pointed out driving under the influence is illegal and should stay illegal.

These are things that are already illegal without drug enforcement laws. There is no victim if someone smokes a joint. There is no victim of someone shooting cocain - perhaps an abuser but not a victim.

The victims are people who are dying of aids, cancer or other diseases and aren't able to get the simple releif they need from a little hooch every now and then.

[BDBionic]

Why not? Are there not already minimum sentences for a range of crimes already on the books? 3 strikes and you are out as i recall.

Regards,

Lee

Just because mandatory minimums exist doesn't mean they're right and proper.

Three strikes can not be equated to any and all mandatory sentences. With 3 strikes you have the recidivism concern. Where is that on mandatory sentences for a first time offense? A non-violent, first time offender having their fate rest entirely in the hands of a prosecutor and the judge playing no role in what their sentence should be?

We have federal mandatory minimums interfering with states rights to prosecute; federal mandatory minimums interfering with the role and power of judges; federal mandatory minimums placing way too much power in the hands of prosecutors; federal mandatory minimums making emotions and political motives the driving force behind sentencing rather than actual public interest and justice.

I personally am of the belief, however, that each individual defendant should be tried on the merits of their individual case and punished in accordance with their individual crime and circumstances, not the political climate of the time or some obscure precedent that may not actually have anything to do with them. We have checks and balances for a reason.

[djdez]

Why not? Are there not already minimum sentences for a range of crimes already on the books? 3 strikes and you are out as i recall.

Regards,

Lee

I'm not a supporter of most 3 strikes and you're out laws. A lot of Americans aren't supporters either. The idea behind it sounds good but it generally covers all felonies which is just wrong.

[djdez]

Just because mandatory minimums exist doesn't mean they're right and proper.

Three strikes can not be equated to any and all mandatory sentences. With 3 strikes you have the recidivism concern. Where is that on mandatory sentences for a first time offense? A non-violent, first time offender having their fate rest entirely in the hands of a prosecutor and the judge playing no role in what their sentence should be?

We have federal mandatory minimums interfering with states rights to prosecute; federal mandatory minimums interfering with the role and power of judges; federal mandatory minimums placing way too much power in the hands of prosecutors; federal mandatory minimums making emotions and political motives the driving force behind sentencing rather than actual public interest and justice.

I personally am of the belief, however, that each individual defendant should be tried on the merits of their individual case and punished in accordance with their individual crime and circumstances, not the political climate of the time or some obscure precedent that may not actually have anything to do with them. We have checks and balances for a reason.

Agreed!!!

[Top Cat]

There is no victim if someone smokes a joint.

I thought a puppy died! Oh wait, that's when you masturbate. :hippy:

[BDBionic]

I'm not a supporter of most 3 strikes and you're out laws. A lot of Americans aren't supporters either. The idea behind it sounds good but it generally covers all felonies which is just wrong.

Not to mention the fact that while legislatures seem so eager to impose mandatory minimums, 3-strikes, and other get tough laws to look all mean and manly with the criminals, they come up short when it comes to paying the huge costs of keeping all these people in prison for so long.