Proposition 19 Looking Less Likely To Pass

Nate Silver has analyzed the polls on  California's marijuana legalization initiative, Proposition 19, and it is looking less and less likely to pass. A new Los Angeles Times/USC poll confirms that a majority of likely voters say they will vote against the measure.

The poll indicated that opposition has surged since September, when 52% of likely voters backed Proposition 19, which would allow Californians to grow and possess pot, and they split evenly over Proposition 23.

The earlier poll's Proposition 19 result had encouraged supporters and attracted some high-dollar donations. The measure would allow Californians who are 21 and older to grow and possess marijuana, while cities and counties could authorize commercial cultivation, sales and taxation.

The latest poll found support had eroded significantly across all demographic groups, but most steeply among Latino voters. In September, 63% backed it. Now, 51% oppose it.

[...]

Much of the reversal appears to be driven by evaporating support in Southern California. In September, 56% of likely voters in Los Angeles County and 52% in other Southern California counties supported the measure. This month, those percentages slipped to 41% and 42%.

Congress Passes Act Reducing Cocaine Disparity

Finally! The disparity between criminal sentences for possession of two different forms of the same illegal substance has long been a bitter pill for progressives like myself to swallow. Happily, this week, Congress passed legislation t reduce the disparity in sentences for powder versus crack cocaine from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1. As I put it before, they made the war on drugs 82% less racist.

From The New York Times:

Under the current law, adopted in 1986 after a surge in crack cocaine smoking and drug-related killings, someone convicted in federal court of possession of five grams of crack must be sentenced to at least five years in prison, and possession of 10 grams requires a 10-year minimum sentence. With powder cocaine, the threshold amounts for those mandatory sentences are 100 times as high.

In the bill passed Wednesday, the amount of crack that would invoke a five-year minimum sentence is raised to 28 grams, said to be roughly the amount a dealer might carry, and for a 10-year sentence, 280 grams.

While crack use has declined since the 1980s, arrests remain common, and some 80 percent of those convicted on crack charges in recent years have been black. A growing number of criminologists have concluded that the sentencing disparity is unjustified and has subjected tens of thousands of blacks to lengthy prison terms while offering more lenient punishment to users and sellers of powder cocaine, who are more often white.

Of course, many people are unhappy with the compromise legislation that has passed, since the new law is still racially discriminatory, as James Rucker of the online activist group Color of Change argues in The Root:

The Senate's compromise is still racially discriminatory and morally wrong, and we have yet to hear anyone explain why a disparity is necessary. It's time for those of us who care about this issue to force Sen. Sessions and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.,--the architects of the compromise--to offer an explanation that actually holds water. If Jeff Sessions really wants to argue that 18:1 is better for our country, we should create a media stir that requires him to defend that position in public. And if the explanation doesn't pass muster, if it doesn't appear to be in line with our communities' interests, we have to say so.

We understand that compromise is sometimes necessary, and we agree with our allies that some level of sentencing relief is better than none. But we can't afford to fold before the final hand has been played, and we shouldn't be negotiating from a position of weakness. That's how we ended up with an 18:1 compromise in the first place versus 10:1 or a 5:1. Real change--on ending this sentencing disparity and on other policy issues important to our communities--depends on our willingness to shine a light on backroom deals and apply grassroots energy to hold our elected officials accountable. That's the way democracy is supposed to work, and our responsibility to raise our voices in protest is not something we should ever compromise.

My position is that one can both argue for a 1:1 bill and still celebrate the progress inherent in the reduction of the previous draconian sentencing disparity. Compromise does not have to be a dirty word, as long as everyone involved realizes this is just one stage, not the end, of a long struggle for change.

War On Drugs: Now 82% Less Racist?

The Los Angeles Times editorializes about a compromise in the U.S. Senate to modify the patently racist policy of treating possession of crack cocaine 100 times more aggressively than powder cocaine. Unfortunately, the Senate voted to make the new ratio 18-to-1, so it is now just 82% less racist:

Panic over a crack epidemic in the nation's cities in the 1980s led to draconian laws that ultimately would be as devastating to entire communities as the drug itself. According to a 2006 report by the American Civil Liberties Union, 1 in 14 black children has a parent in prison because of felony drug convictions. That's why a bipartisan bill to reduce the 100-1 sentencing disparity, approved unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee, is at once welcome and disheartening. The committee voted to reduce the disparity to 18 to 1, but the ratio should be 1 to 1, as proposed by Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.). Under the bill, possession of 28 grams of crack, instead of 5 grams, would trigger the five-year mandatory minimum sentence. The bill also would stiffen penalties for bribing a peace officer and violence attendant to a crack-related offense.

It has taken more than a decade of determined advocacy to reach this point, and although it's not perfect, the Senate's reform measure, which is not retroactive, would mitigate the sentences of an estimated 3,000 people a year. So we reluctantly urge the House to forgo its rational, reasonable and more just approach -- because insisting on a 1-1 ratio, as approved by the House Judiciary Committee in the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009, would by most accounts destroy any chance of passage. This is one issue on which there is cross-aisle cowardice: Few members of either party are willing to appear "soft on crime."

So 18 to 1 appears to be the best we can get. Republicans are insisting that bipartisanship is over and that there will be little, if any, cooperation for the rest of this year. But this agreement has already been struck. Before year's end, we hope to see the biased sentencing disparity on its way out.

The War on Drugs. Now 82% less racist. Sheeesh.

Obama DOJ Supports Cocaine Sentencing Reform

Elections have (good) consequences! The Washington Post is reporting that the Department of Justice has decided to (finally) support legislation to reform the drastic inequities in sentencing for possession and trafficking of different forms of cocaine.

"Now is the time for us to reexamine federal cocaine sentencing policy, from the perspective of both fundamental fairness and safety," Breuer told the subcommittee on crime and drugs. He said the issues would be among those considered by a Justice Department panel that within six months is to develop recommendations on an array of topics related to charging, sentencing and prisoner treatment.

Bipartisan groups of lawmakers in the House and Senate have introduced measures to equalize sentences, but the proposals have stalled in the past.

The sentencing inequality has come to be known as the "100 to 1" ratio, in which possession of five grams of crack, the weight of two small sugar cubes, triggers a mandatory five-year prison term, while a person carrying 500 grams of powder cocaine would receive the same sentence.

Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who chairs the subcommittee, noted that more than half of federal inmates are locked up for drug-related crimes, including high ratios of African American offenders. In 2007, Durbin said, 82 percent of people convicted on crack possession charges were black, and 9 percent were white. (emphasis added)

This is another good sign that the "War on Drugs" is losing saliency as a political football. In New York, the Rockefeller drug laws have recently been repealed under Governor David Paterson.

Mexican President Promises Universal Free Anti-HIV Drugs

Felipe Calderon, the President of Mexico, opened the XVII International AIDS Conference in Mexico City on Sunday by making two big announcements: Mexican citizens will now have access to universal anti-retroviral drugs and he is lifting restrictions on foreign manufacturers making generic anti-retroviral drugs in his country. "All absolutely, all, antiretroviral drugs will be provided for free," President Calderon said (in Spanish).

REVIEW: American Gangster

Saw Ridley Scott's American Gangster starring Oscar winners Denzel Washington (Glory, Training Day) and Russell Crowe (Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind) from a script by Steve Zaillian (Schindler's List) at my favorite second-run theaters in Pasadena (Regency Academy Theaters) this weekend.

Although it is billed as two-star vehicle, it is clearly Denzel's show and he runs away with the film, although I was impressed with Crowe's understatedly effective work. It is unlikely it will bring him his 4th Oscar nomination, although it is likely it will bring Denzel his 6th.

What the most impressive feature of the film to me was Ridley Scott's direction. I was shocked to discover that the creative force behind Alien (1979), Blade Runner (1982), Legend (1985), Thelma & Louise (1991) and Gladiator (2000) has been nominated 3 times (Thelma & Louise, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down) but never won an Oscar or Director's Guild of America Award.

The film is set in the late 1960s and early 1970s in New York City and New Jersey and reproduces this era with amazing precision and verisimilitude. Additionally, the story is pretty complex, recounting the details of how Frank Lucas became the most "dangerous drug dealer in New York City, even bigger than the mafia" in the words of Richie Roberts, the detective who locked him up. However, through clever pacing and non-showy direction, Scott weaves the tale with an ever increasing level of suspense despite the fact the ending is known walking into the theater.

The only caveat to my enthusiasm for the film is its shockingly retrograde depiction of women.
First of all, it is a testosterone-fueled film, with all the central characters depicted by men, from Lucas (Denzel) and Roberts (Russell) as the two main protagonists followed by Denzel's lieutentants played by his brothers and every single cop being male. The female characters are Denzel's wife, Denzel's mother, Russell's estranged wife and Denzel's drug production lieutenant. None of these characters is afforded agency and most of them are depicted one dimensionally. There are several incidental depictions of females as (mainly nude) objects of entertainment for men or as drug-addicted irresponsible caregivers.

Despite this drawback, overall American Gangster is a well-made, suspenseful period crime drama featuring two notable performances from two Oscar-level actors working at the top of their game.

GRADE: B+/A-

Race, Drugs and Sentencing Laws

The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times and other major newspapers are editorializing in favor of the United States Sentencing Commission appplying retroactively a newly issued policy change that eliminates the 100-to-1 sentencing discrepancy between crack and powder cocaine enacted in the Reagan-era. From Los Angeles Times' "Crack sentencing needs another fix":

Regardless of the intention, those guidelines proved not only discriminatory but ineffective -- as well as unjustified by scientific research. More than 80% of those serving time in federal prison on crack charges are African American. This has justifiably fueled distrust and disrespect for the law in black communities. Why should a black crack addict get more time than a white cocaine addict? Especially when research has shown that the two drugs are pharmacologically identical? Moreover, 20 years of harsh crack sentences have done nothing to stem the drug trade.

As of Nov. 1, the sentencing disparity has been eased, and Congress did the right thing by allowing the changes to take effect. Today, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, a panel created by Congress in 1984 to ensure fair terms for those convicted on federal charges, will discuss whether to make the reduction in sentences retroactive -- a move that would shave an average of at least two years off the terms of nearly 20,000 inmates.

The Justice Department argues that returning all those convicts to the streets represents a potential danger to the community. Perhaps, but then the release of any inmate represents a potential danger; anyone eligible for release has already served ample time for his or her crime. Because the Sentencing Commission has already ruled that the crack guidelines were unfair, it would be inconsistent to keep inmates in prison simply because they were sentenced before the rules were changed. What is unfair now was unfair then.

Mad Professah agrees with the calls for retroactivity, and notes that when drug sentences for marijuana and LSD were changed in the early 90s, those changes were applied retroactively. Of course, those changes primarily affected white people, while the current sentences for crack cocaine primarily affect black and brown people. I'm jus' sayin...