See the article in the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/28/nyregion/legalization-marijuana-new-jersey.html

The people pushing expungement say that African-American and Latino communities have been convicted of drug charges at a higher rate than other races.  One researcher claims that a black person has a 50% higher chance of being arrested and convicted of possessing marijuana than a white person for the same crime.

So, to legalize marijuana in New Jersey, do they have to reward criminals?

The movement in the legislature is not a free “get out of jail” card.  For instance, the person who wants an expungement must prove they have not been arrested and/or convicted of a drug charge for at least ten years prior.

And many states which have passed laws to legalize marijuana also recognize the race-based higher rates of convictions for Blacks and Latinos.  But have not tied the legalization of pot to those statistical facts.

I worked for over 40 years as both a prosecutor and defense lawyer. I handled thousands of drug cases.  Politicians and groups who have pushed for harsher sentencing for drug offenders claim the purpose is to catch the kingpins. That will stop the sales on the street.  In my experience, that’s the opposite of what actually happens.  The people pulled into the system are the lowest-level users. They sell a little in order to pay for their own use.  Rarely, are the big shots caught.

Since the 70’s, the “war on drugs” has given us jails bursting with low-level drug offenders.  The majority of them are men of color.  Some argue that segments of the communities of color commit more crimes.  Others argue that the entire system is, obviously, racist and unfair.

Whichever side you may agree with the fact remains that too many people are in prison for possession of drugs. There are other ways to handle these cases.  If you have a felony on your record  it’s almost impossible to get a decent job.  That forces many felons to go back into the drug trade to support families.

Should we legalize marijuana and include the expungement of the records of prior felons?

New Jersey has not passed the law yet.  It’ll be interesting to see if they do and what the outcome will be.  It seems like the expanding effort in the U.S. to consider the wisdom of making many drugs illegal may need to be re-thought.

What do you think?

The post Legalize Marijuana—and Reward Criminals? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

Started in the 1970’s, the War on Drugs spawned a huge federal/state law enforcement apparatus that has taken on a life of its own.  Thousands of people are involved:  not only the obvious law enforcement people and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), but also all the prosecutors, judges, and Public Defenders across the country.  Then, once convicted, the defendants go to prison which has led the United States to the dubious ranking of one of the highest incarceration rates in the world!

Mr. Jones, in my opinion, is making the correct choice.

I have worked for over 30 years as both a county prosecutor and Public Defender.  Although, I’ve not worked in federal court, the local state courts still handle more drug-related cases than the feds.  I can tell you that in all these years, very few “drug kingpins” have ever been convicted.  The majority of drug offenders are low-level users who may sell in order to meet their habit.  Even at the federal level, I doubt the convictions are of many high-level drug lords.  

Mr. Jones’ office has the resources to go after more complex crime–and he should do so.  The state courts will still prosecute the drug offenders.

What’s going on in the war on drugs?  At the state court level, the largest county in Minnesota has started something called “Drug Court.”  Instead of automatically jailing drug offenders, several rehabilitation efforts are offered to the accused.  If they successfully overcome their addiction, their cases may be dismissed.  Of course, if they fail, they must proceed with their criminal cases.  In spite of ever-onerous sentences for drug possession/sale, the state courts have effectively circumvented these draconian penalties by allowing drug offenders to clean themselves up and get out of the criminal justice system.

Did you know that some of the toughest sentences in the country are for federal drug offenders?  Has it made a difference in the drug problem in the U.S?  Did you know that the majority of inmates in federal prisons are not there for violent or white-collar crimes, but are there, instead, for low-level drug offenses?  Has this approach decreased the drug problem in the U.S?

I don’t think so.

Another issue that Mr. Jones may be considering is that the federal prison population is made-up almost entirely of African-American drug users.  Many people in the black community view this as a modern day extension of slavery because of the ultimate effect of all the federal drug laws–that act to imprison an inordinately high percentage of the African-American community.

Should the War on Drugs be declared over so we can “bring our troops home?”  Let me know what you think.

The post Is the War on Drugs Over?? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

In my last post, I recommended travel book writer Rick Steves’ new book called, Travel as a Political Act.  Among other great insights that he’s learned from his travels throughout Europe, he has a chapter on a common problem for both the U.S. and Europe: drugs.  http://travelstore.ricksteves.com/catalog/index.cfm?fuseaction=product&theParentId=163&id=385

He separates the problem into “soft” drugs (alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco) and “hard” drugs (heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine).  Last post, I wrote about the soft drugs; this time, I’ll look at hard drugs.

One of the biggest differences Rick Steves  found between the U.S. and Europe is their government’s approach to the problem.  The U.S. has criminalized all possession/sale of drugs while some of the European countries have decriminalized possession and treat it as a public health problem that needs to be minimized and an effort made to reduce the harm both to the user and the community.

He writes about the Swiss who have installed blue lights in all public bathrooms–it makes it difficult to find your veins if you’re trying to shoot-up in a public bathroom!  They also offer low cost clean syringes for sale all over the country.  They realize that dirty needles, not heroin, cause the spread of disease.  In addition, addicts can access the services of nurses and counselors in an effort to go straight and get back to jobs.

In contrast, in the U.S. we have criminalized the possession of all hard drugs and treat it with criminal sanctions–prison.  Certainly chemical dependency programs are offered but often they are in connection with the criminal justice system or prison.  Both of which are extremely expensive ways for us to pay for this problem when you add in the costs of law enforcement, the court system, probation, and prisons.

The state courts in Minnesota have taken a different approach that’s created a hybrid between the EU’s policy and strict criminal enforcement.  It’s called “Drug Court.”  While the state legislature continues to criminalize possession of hard drugs, when offenders are arrested and charged, if they are first time offenders, instead of the usual trial and prison if convicted, the courts offer them an alternative.

Probation officers and social workers become involved and offer treatment programs to the offenders.  If they successfully complete treatment and can demonstrate sobriety over a period of time, their criminal cases are dismissed.  The effect is to “decriminalize” the offenses–sort of.

The effort is not focused on punishment but rather, on reducing a public health problem.  Overall, the U.S. loses about 18,000 people to hard drug overdoses while Europe (with a much larger population) loses about 8,000.

Maybe we could learn something from them?

The post War on Drugs–Busted, Part II appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

I bought it, read it, and highly recommend it.  In one of his chapters, he writes about the different approach Europe takes (generally) from the U.S. about a common problem:  drugs.

Not all the EU countries follow this, but many do: instead of criminalizing the problem, they’ve decriminalized it and now treat it as public health problem.  They understand that some people will always use drugs and, as a result, they question if there’s a way to minimize the harm to the individual and to the community instead of putting them in prison.

In the U.S. we treat use as a crime and the result is clogged courts, jails, and prisons holding drug offenders–the vast majority who are not pushers or big dealers.  (They rarely seem to get caught)

Rick Steves says that he’s not “soft or hard” on drugs; rather, he’s  trying to be “smart” on drugs.  In our country there’s such a moral condemnation attached to drug use (not only are you a “criminal” by definition, but you’re also a bad person) that we are unable to look rationally at our national drug policies.  Luckily, someone of Mr. Steves‘ reputation is willing to stand up and, at least, question the wisdom of our present stance on drugs.

I appreciate that he’s got the courage to offer pragmatic solutions, based on his experience in the U.S. and the EU.  He separates drugs into “soft” (marijuana, alcohol, tobacco) and “hard” (heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine).  The easiest to think about are the soft ones, of course.

In the Minnesota courts, I rarely see any prosecutions for marijuana sale or possession unless the quantity is so large the possessor is almost tempting law enforcement to bust him.  In effect, we’ve decriminalized it to an extent.  Still, it’s technically against the law and many other states continue to prosecute marijuana possession vigorously.  The result is: higher law enforcement costs, time taken away from law enforcement of more serious crimes, huge court costs for prosecutors, Public Defenders, judges, probation officers, and then the long, lingering costs for prisons.

In many countries in Europe, the sale of small amounts of marijuana is legal and conducted in specific open, public stores.  Instead of spending trillions of dollars these countries regulate and receive tax income from the sales.  (Like we do with alcohol and tobacco)  With the income these countries receive, they spend it on counseling and addiction services for the users.

Makes sense to me.  Isn’t there a better way to handle the “war on drugs” in our country?

Next post, I’ll cover issues around the hard drugs, what some countries in Europe have done, and what the courts in Minnesota are doing–the results may surprise you!

Also…my new book Fallout about a home-grown terrorist who tries to blow-up nuclear power plants in the U.S. will be released June 1!  I’ll let you know more as we get closer.

The post War on Drugs–Busted! appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

There are two reasons for this surge in prison population and the resulting surge in costs to the government for housing all these people.

1. Politicians, in response to rising crime levels in the 80’s (Once they peaked in those years, they’ve been falling ever since according to FBI statistics), all “got tough” on crime. The way they chose to do so was to pass more laws criminalizing more behaviors and increasing sentences. With every new politician who came into office, vowing to get tough on crime, the only way they could follow-up was to keep raising the penalties. This resulted in a huge increase in prisoners who now stay much longer than ever before.

2. The “War on Drugs” started under President Nixon sought to get the dealers and top people who were selling drugs in the U.S. Of course, some of these kingpins were caught, convicted, and sentenced. In my 30+ years of experience as both a defense lawyer and prosecutor, the reality is that most drug offenders are low-level users. Why? They’re easier to catch and convict. Even though these people fill up our prisons, they’re not the ones we really want to lock-up. Most are not dealers;–they’re users.

Consider that as the prison population ages, they will become “senior citizens” who will all need extensive medical care–can you imagine what that’ll cost us as taxpayers?

So, what to do about this?

There are two ideas:

1. Decriminalize some of the drug offenses. London tried an experimental program that offered hard-core heroin addicts free drugs. Sound crazy? They identified hard-core users, measured and controlled the dosages, and administered them by medical personnel. There was a corresponding drop in crime. How about decriminalizing marijuana? If we were to treat it like alcohol, control the purity and quantity, sell it only in licensed stores, and tax it heavily, that one drug alone may be able to pay for all the prisoners in custody today.

2. Establish diversion programs in the courts. A less radical idea than the first is to divert low-level drug offenders out of the criminal justice system. They would be monitored by probation officers, report regularly, and stay out of criminal trouble. This model is being used by many jurisdictions already with good results. Instead of sending these people to prison, they remain in the community under supervision unless they re-offend. It certainly eliminates a great percentage of the present prison population.

I can already hear the opposition to these ideas.

What do you think? Will this bring about the downfall of America? Let me know.

The post Empty the Prisons!! appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.