I Wish Pres. Obama Would Pardon Those In Jail For Non-Violent Drug Offenses

[polichick]

Last edited Sun Jul 7, 2013, 03:34 PM - Edit history (1)

Congress makes it almost impossible for the president to do some things, but President Obama could do a lot to end the so-called "war on drugs" if he wanted to.

These facts alone should be enough to inspire some pardons:
http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheet

But when you consider the shameful for-profit prison system in America and the injustice of destroying lives because of addiction, poverty and other medical and social problems, it's hard to understand why an intelligent Democratic president who has himself smoked marijuana and who fully understands the inequalities of our current system would continue this charade.

Just something I've been thinking about...


(I put this in the politics section because imo the "war on drugs" is all about the worst kind of politics.)


On Edit: Just found a helpful article on this subject:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/03/16/the-untapped-power-presidential-pardons/cseZPMSu2Qxm7Lg2lRshSM/story.html

"Used properly, they say, the pardon is a singular tool of governance, one with the power to restore balance to the justice system and put important issues on the national agenda."

[Live and Learn]

1. Yes, acknowledge it as a medical problem, pardon them and start funding

real help for those addicted.

[polichick]

3. Agreed. I'll bet family members of Congress get treatment...

...instead of time behind bars.

[Live and Learn]

6. They may be able to keep out of jail for longer but

even the rich and famous succumb to addiction and some eventually end up in prison (Michael Douglass' son). Many who don't end up in prison end up overdosing instead. It is time to take addiction out of the dark and quit treating it as a moral failing and treat it as the medical problem it really is.

[polichick]

7. That would be great and seems so logical...

Which makes you realize that there are some powerful interests who benefit from the current system - the for-profit prison system, local governments that get funding for arrests and the pharmaceutical companies come to mind, though I'm sure there are others.

[Live and Learn]

9. Exactly, follow the money as usual. nt

[bemildred]

22. It has always been the case that money and clout can get you off, many times if need be.

This is doubly true in drug cases. It's almost what drug cases are FOR.

[polichick]

24. True - but it sure is disappointing that it's fine with...

our intelligent Democratic president - and the first black president to boot.

My sense is that he's too close to the pharmaceutical companies to do anything about the "war on drugs" - or, more accurately, the WAR ON CITIZENS.

[bemildred]

25. I am reserving judgement on Obama.

However, I will agree that I am very disappointed in my government, and as twice-elected President he cannot escape responsibility.

[Marrah_G]

2. It would be nice if he would stop jailing people with legal pot

[polichick]

4. Could it be about the pharmaceutical companies??

Consider how many drugs would be replaced by marijuana if it were legal across the country - pain pills, sleeping pills, etc., etc., etc.

[Marrah_G]

17. bingo

It's always about the money

[dkf]

5. Then he is liable for anything they may do.

On the other hand he doesn't have to run again.

[polichick]

8. Non-violent offenders who are given treatment...

shouldn't be too much of a risk.

And it's really about justice - unless we don't do "liberty and justice for all" anymore. Sometimes I wonder.

[dkf]

10. But that many people...someone is bound to do something.

That's a pretty weaselly excuse in retrospect but I bet it's a big reason.

[Live and Learn]

12. You may be right but I am glad you clarified you didn't find it an adequate reason. nt

[dkf]

14. The political part is disgusting but a fact of life.

[Live and Learn]

11. Of course not, we must be jailed for what we might do in the future.

Guilty unless you can prove you aren't a risk to the 1%. And we have to fund those private prisons somehow.

, by the way.

[onenote]

13. My guess is that most non violent drug offenders are in jail on state law offenses

and the President has no power to pardon those convicted under state law.

[polichick]

15. He could pardon in the District, and that would be a powerful symbol of justice.

[polichick]

16. Big surprise - the "Ever Been Arrested?" ads that keep popping up...

when I look at this thread all show people of color.

Maybe they represent the people in jail on drug offenses.

[Igel]

18. No.

There's an overwhelming lack of nuance in that.

It's hard to get a number for how many people are in federal prison for non-violent drug offenses. The Bureau of Prisons lists about 90k for drug offenses. That includes all kinds. Not just non-violent. But also the possession of weapons while commiting a drug-related offense, burglaries of prohibited or controlled substances.

Then again, strictly speaking if somebody breaks into your house and steals all your prescription drugs that's not a "violent offense," is it?

Federal drug offenses include smuggling large amounts of illegal drugs as well as manufacturing them. This includes the sale and distribution to minors. Somebody gives your kid something that'll get him addicted, that's not a violent offense.

It includes the theft of materials used for producing drugs. Think anhydrous ammonia. Somebody steals a ton of the stuff, hey, it's drug related *and* not violent.

It includes money laundering. And tax evasion.

It includes the manufacture and/or distribution of date-rape drugs. So if that punch at the frat party includes rohypnol, not a prob. The maker, purchaser, and person who slipped it into the punch is a non-violent offender. Pardons for everybody!

As well as the illegal trafficking of prescription drugs.

As far as I can tell, those in federal prison for mere possession can't total much more than 31k, and that's everybody in federal prison with a sentence of 3 years or less (the maximum for mere possession). That means 2/3 of those people in federal prison for drug-related offenses--hard to tell how many are "non-violent"--are there for things other than simple possession.

However, there are a lot of other crimes that have penalties of 3 years or less. Plus a fair number of the "not simple possession" drug offenses have penalties in that same range.

Perhaps you want to rethink your proposal? Or say that the guy who drugs a lot of women, the dealer who gets your kid hooked, the tax evader, as well as smugglers are all simple, misunderstood folk who deserve a pardon.

Then again, what do I know. I'm just basing this on 10 minutes' reading of horribly biased, prejudiced, and obviously unreliable sources, not a polemically-charged inflammatory article--a short Bureau of Prisons statistical summary and a Congressional Research Service report.

http://www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp#4
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30722.pdf

Most drug offences that you're taking aim at are state-level offenses or are rolled in with other sentences at the federal level.

[polichick]

20. Might be complicated to come up with guidelines...

But gov't lawyers are plentiful and Pres. Obama is a smart man - unfortunately, he seems perfectly fine with the disgusting "war on drugs."

[Mariana]

23. If someone breaks into your house

and steals all your prescription drugs, he's not locked up for just "non-violent drug offenses". No one has suggested pardoning people who've been convicted of breaking and entering, or burglary, or theft.

[Sunlei]

19. all the Feds have to do is decriminalize marijuana. those in prison for just that would be free

They still would have base 'crimes' to deal with. Like growing crops on federal land.

The 'for profit' prison system will never let go of their gravy train.

[polichick]

21. Yeah, the prison system and pharmaceutical companies...

would really feel it. So, screw the people - that's America these days.