Pot Decriminalization in RI: Just a Starting Point


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Rhode Island became the latest state to lessen the punishments for small amounts of marijuana, popularly known as “decriminalizing” it.  Six years ago, there were many doubters and few reformers on board.  Yet it appears America is fed up with many facets of drug policy.  Organizations that have been seen as fringe radicals, such as Direct Action for Rights & Equality (DARE), are seeing their proposals become mainstream positions.  This DARE, not to be confused with the other D.A.R.E., has consistently looked to change the misguided (or malicious) attempt to curb drug use through prisons.  Once this seemingly impossible reform became inevitable, the members of DARE realized their work was all but done.

A key element to the new law is that people on probation or parole will not be violated and sent to prison.    People without actual experience in the criminal justice realm had to be educated on this element.  Cynically enough, those who wanted to pass this measure based on saving money (by less incarceration) had to be shown that most imprisonments are due to such violations.  Remarkably, the Attorney General stuck to their story that nobody is sent to prison for marijuana… even as evidence and personal stories came forth.

It is likely that the Dept. of Probation and Parole will develop new guidelines for what to do when someone receives a $150 “pot ticket” (which doubles to $300 after 30 days, and to $600 after 90 days).  They will likely need to pay even more to attend a mandatory drug program, and failure to do so will result in a violation.  This may ultimately prove challenging for people who are unemployed or barely scraping by, as are many people released from prison.

There should be no surprise that the bulk of marijuana tickets will disproportionately come from highly policed areas, and disproportionately affect People of Color, who represent about two-thirds of Providence.  DARE, ACLU, PrYSM, and others have consistently presented evidence of racial profiling in Rhode Island that has a similar ring to the NYPD’s “Stop and Frisk” program that is currently under scrutiny by the Justice Department and Gov. Cuomo.  Marijuana decriminalization, however, did not gain momentum due to the disproportionate impact on the 21% of Rhode Island residents who are Black, Latino, or Asian.  It passed because 12% of Rhode Islanders are willing to admit they smoke pot.  The Providence Journal article poll tallies 29% of people who “already” smoke.

When former RI Republican Minority Leader Bob Watson was arrested in Connecticut last year, just prior to a hearing on this bill, some wondered what would have happened if Watson was pulled over in his hometown of Portsmouth… or if he had been before.  Watson’s public defense was that he needed the pot for his ailments, i.e. he needed it to get by.  Many of that 12% have said the same.  I have never encountered a person who wants their friend or family member to be disabled through drug use of any kind, and so my last words to the legislators on the matter were, “if you caught your son, daughter, or colleague with marijuana, what would you do?  Whatever it is, what’s good enough for your son, daughter, or colleague is good enough for the rest of Rhode Island.”

Nobody believed we could eliminate mandatory minimum drug sentences in Rhode Island.  But we did.  Nobody believed we could pass a law that would nullify a probation violation prison sentence if the new charges were ultimately dismissed.  But we did.  When we started down this road, few believed Rhode Island was ready to reduce penalties even on marijuana… and now some politicians openly call for regulation and taxation of this plant.  The push to create a Study Commission (often the kiss of death) by Senator Josh Miller was crucial.  It allowed reports such as the study by Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron to gain prominence and dissemination through Open Doors, a service provider for the formerly incarcerated.  The study commission put major advocacy partners on notice, such as Drug Policy Alliance, Marijuana Policy Project, and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition- and let them know that we are making change in this tiny little state.

What is next in drug policy other than pushing for full regulation, and a potenial $300 million in economic impact?  It is worth noting that marijuana has been a gateway drug to a criminal record, and once someone is on probation they no longer receive the full protection of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments; they are essentially guilty until proven innocent.  For those who want to save dollars and those who want a rational or humane approach to drug policy in Rhode Island, we can look at ways for people to get out of what is one of the most regressive probation schemes in the country.  RI is one of the leaders in percentages of people on probation and the lengths of sentences.

One proposal we put forth is limiting the probation violation to the time remaining on probation.  Currently, someone with a 10 year suspended sentence can be given that term if violated on the last day of the 10th year.  This often violates the statute of limitations, carrying a punishment beyond what is permissible by law.  Another proposal is to allow probationers and parolees the ability to earn Good Time credits off their sentences.  Ultimately, the only ones who would receive credits are those “doing the right thing,” and it would allow Probation Officers more flexibility in curbing inappropriate behavior, short of incarceration.  Another proposal, which gained momentum this year, is a Good Samaritan law that would not punish a drug user who calls 911 to save the life of another.  This places a higher priority on life than on imprisoning those who are generally addicted to heroin (the most common form of overdose).

No matter what direction activists and politicians go after this key victory, it appears certain that the public is far ahead of the politicians on this matter.  It is high time that harmless behavior be treated as such in the courts.  It is also time for us to find medical solutions for health problems such as addiction, rather than putting someone in a cage until later.

 

Bruce Reilly is a member of DARE, Rhode Island’s only organization committed to (among other things) the development and empowerment of those directly impacted by the criminal justice system.  He testified on this bill in both the House and Senate, along with other DARE members, and is a national steering committee member of the Formerly Incarcerated & Convicted People’s Movement.  He attends Tulane University Law School, and is currently a legal intern at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Why We Celebrate the Gaspée Affair


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
The Gaspée going up in flames

Imagine the state police identified an area where a high level of drug-smuggling was being committed. So they sent a police cruiser in, part of a unit effective enough to really make the dealers angry. One day, the cruiser broke down in the middle of the street. Hearing about it, the dealers got together, went out, dragged the officers from the car and shot one. Then they torched the car.

If you read that story in real life, you might be completely horrified at that kind of behavior. Yet, that’s almost exactly what the Burning of the HMS Gaspée was (I’m only reducing the scale). Regardless of your opinion of the Navigation Acts, Rhode Islanders actively engaged in criminal activity. You can justify that criminal activity by saying the law itself was unjust, but at the end of the day, plenty of Rhode Islanders were still breaking a law.

All of this isn’t to say shame on Rhode Island for celebrating the end of the Gaspée. It’s actually to say that it’s a great thing. Gaspée continues to have lessons today to how Rhode Islanders (and Americans) go about resisting unjust laws. Ideally, we should agree that violence isn’t the solution. We want no police officers shot, no cruisers burned.

That it came to that should be considered something that was specific to the time. But the idea that we can be so antagonistic to an institution like the British customs service should demonstrate to us a solution: that we can, and should, ignore unjust power structures.

Taking the historical view, this wasn’t something that was simply Rhode Island-specific. It wasn’t even specific to the Thirteen Colonies. Across the Americas in the 18th Century, European powers were reaching out and enacting a series of administrative reforms designed to increase control over their colonies. In the case of Spain, they actually reduced taxes across the board in the colonies, but because the new Spanish administrators were so much more competent at their jobs, revenues increased. This sort of thing resulted in very angry colonies, from Maine to Buenos Aires.

Which tells us a lot. There are plenty of laws today that if enforced broadly would cause an uproar. Drug laws are the best example. We can already say that they are being enforced, just very case-specifically (our “highly-policed communities”), which tend to be poor and non-white. And even with that enforcement 42% of Americans have admitted to smoking pot (only New Zealand comes close; the Netherlands has a percentage half that and it’s legal there). If our drug policy extended beyond our highly-policed communities and into the suburbs and rural areas, the uproar would be deafening.

It’s good that we’ve passed both dispensaries, and passed decriminalization (though the governor still needs to sign it). But ultimately, these are half-measures. Anything less than legalization, regulation, and taxation is a farce. We’re seeing the same problems that led to the Gaspée Affair take place in microcosm today: local authorities are lax on enforcement, or passing laws counter to central government policy. Americans have signaled they are ready for a conversation about drug policy. But it’s delusional if we don’t believe that conversation must include space for legalization.

The Gaspée Affair took place when the British were unwilling to have a conversation about what it meant to be a British citizen and subject, and whether that conversation was a two-way street or not. Ultimately, they found out that when the conversation ended, action began.

I’ve always thought that as Rhode Island, we have a difficult Revolutionary War history. Beginning with a violent murder in 1772, Newport occupied with a siege culminating in an exposure of the difficulties of French and American cooperation, and ultimately having to be forced in accepting the United States Constitution by the threat of being taxed as a foreign nation. But that’s not really it.

The Gaspée and its demise should be a symbol of Rhode Island’s inherent nature to dissent. That we should embrace this is very important. We should always dissent. We should encourage dissension. Whether it’s Roger Williams, or Thomas Dorr, or more modernly Jessica Alqhuist, our ability to argue for new ideas and against establishment ones is our ultimate strength. That will be unpopular. It will be unpopular even among Rhode Islanders. But that’s okay. You dissent not because you believe in the popularity of your ideas, but because you believe you are right.

Which is why Gaspee Days is the most Rhode Island holiday that we celebrate.

How To Confront a Candidate, or How to Drink Liberally.

It is often bemoaned that candidates only talk about certain issues, only debate the same topics, and hardly ever disagree on anything of true substance.  “My economic package is better than yours.”  “I’m tougher on our enemies than the other guy.”  Blah, blah, blah.  When we consider that Obama, Bush, and McCain all agreed on (1) the Bailout of the banks, (2) hundreds of thousands of American soldiers patrolling multiple Middle Eastern nations, (3) the Patriot Act, (4) maintaining the Drug War, (5) paying mercenary armies like Blackwater, (6) appointing industry insiders to regulatory positions, (7) accepting billions of dollars in campaign donations, and so many other things…  what do they have left to disagree about??  The level of discrimination against gay people.  A few percentage points on the tax bill.

So the key to getting your issue on the map is to ask the candidate in public, with voters and media in the room.  Even if you are creating your own media, the key is to get them “on the record.”  Wait in line for the microphone and ask away.  Obviously this is easier to do in a local race than a big national one, but those interactions are going to have more impact anyway.  People need to see that the president is, in many ways, inconsequential because there is little difference between candidates.

Go look in the mirror and practice how to load up a question.  Here, try these on for size:

“With prison spending exceeding education spending, and legal discrimination against 200,000 people in our state due to their felony record, where they are barred from employment, where computers are deleting applications that reflect a felony record, where public housing is denying the reunification of families… do you think we should continue to use prisons as a solution for mental illness, homelessness, and substance abuse?  Or do you think we should find an alternative?”

 Check out the tactic of leading in with some facts.  Frame the question.  Make it so they must agree… in public at least.

“Considering that education is the oldest form of self-empowerment and the only known pathway for stability, not only for an individual but for a community, do you think prisoners and former prisoners should be allowed to get an education?”

Follow-up:  “And what do you say to the person who feels that a former prisoner’s education is taking a classroom seat away from someone who was not in prison, and more deserving?”

Who can be against education?

“In a society where defense attorneys are sometimes earning millions of dollars each year defending drug clients, do you find any conflict of interest for a legislator, who has ties to the defense attorneys through their own firm or their close associates, to make laws that create more clients?”

“With all the failed results from rehabilitation and re-entry programs designed without the input of those who have direct experience, do you think it is time to listen to former prisoners (those who are truly the primary stakeholder in rehabilitation) about what works and doesn’t work… or should we keep giving money to so-called experts and the politically connected entities?“

“Do you think people released from prison should be encouraged to get more involved in their community by voting, holding jobs, and raising their children… or should they be pushed into the shadows of an underclass where drugs and violence are essential for survival?”

Here’s one I have for Attorney General Eric Holder, who is coming to do a talk on voting at my law school.  Let’s see if he selects it, and answers….

“In Louisiana there are 66,000 people on probation and parole who cannot vote, and over 10% of New Orleans is barred from voting.  Considering as Felony Disenfranchisement laws have a disparate impact on People of Color, do you believe theJustice Department should consider enforcing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in states, such as Louisiana, that are covered under Section 5 of the Act?”

Film it, post it, share it.  Let the follow-ups begin, and let the candidates show their knowledge, intelligence, leadership, and compassion for all their constituents shine… or not.

What question would YOU ask?