a bird and a bottle

Interesting news from ACSBlog: The Supreme Court yesterday agreed to hear a case challenging the disparity between sentences for crack cocaine and those for powder cocaine. As I have discussed — at length – the fact that crack possession is punished 100 times more harshly than cocaine possession is both nonsensical and racist (which might make it sensical to some, I guess).

Anyway, the Supreme Court will hear the case, Kimbrough v. U.S., in its next term after a nice long summer vacation. Kimbrough concerns a question of judges’ sentencing authority: does a judge have the power to sentence outside the 100-to-1 guidelines? SCOTUSBlog has a more full (and somewhat technical) explanation.

It’ll be interesting to see how this one comes out. It’s not just going to be a decision about drug war policies. Scalia has been surprisingly pro-defendant on sentencing, and Breyer supports giving judges more leeway. We could end up with a strange group in the majority and perhaps finally an end to one of the most overtly racist practices in today’s criminal justice system.

I know you’re all waiting with baited breath, but I still haven’t decided whom - if anyone - to “endorse” going into the Democratic primary. It’s still early. I might. But not yet.

That said, damn Obama’s rhetoric works for me.

Andrew Sullivan’s got the full text of Obama’s recent speech (which Sullivan somewhat derisively though perhaps somewhat accurately calls a sermon) at Hampton University. Obama used the story of the shooting of a pregnant woman (in white, natch) during which the bullet lodged in the arm of the woman’s fetus. The fetus survives but has scar as a reminder.

The story makes my skin crawl a little. But what he does with it is damn good. There’s this:

And so God is asking us today to remember that miracle of that baby. And He is asking us to take that bullet out once more.

If we have more black men in prison than are in our colleges and universities, then it’s time to take the bullet out. If we have millions of people going to the emergency room for treatable illnesses like asthma; it’s time to take the bullet out. If too many of our kids don’t have health insurance; it’s time to take the bullet out. If we keep sending our kids to dilapidated school buildings, if we keep fighting this war in Iraq, a war that never should have been authorized and waged, a war that’s costing us $275 million dollars a day and a war that is taking too many innocent lives — if we have all these challenges and nothing’s changing, then every minister in America needs to come together — form our own surgery teams — and take the bullets out.

And this:

If we want to stop the cycle of poverty, then we need to start with our families.

We need to start supporting parents with young children. There is a pioneering Nurse-Family Partnership program right now that offers home visits by trained registered nurses to low-income mothers and mothers-to-be. They learn how to care for themselves before the baby is born and what to do after. It’s common sense to reach out to a young mother. Teach her about changing the baby. Help her understand what all that crying means, and when to get vaccines and check-ups.

This program saves money. It raises healthy babies and creates better parents. It reduced childhood injuries and unintended pregnancies, increased father involvement and women’s employment, reduced use of welfare and food stamps, and increased children’s school readiness. And it produced more than $28,000 in net savings for every high-risk family enrolled in the program.

This works and I will expand the Nurse-Family Partnership to provide at-home nurse visits for up to 570,000 first-time mothers each year. We can do this. Our God is big enough for that.

So he hits my two pet issues in a single speech: first, the country’s unconscionable jailing of hundreds of thousands of mostly poor and mostly black men and women; and second, the empty rhetoric of the American “pro-life” movement and what an America that really supports families would look like. And he gets both issues right.

Sullivan calls Obama a compassionate conservative — made in the model that Bush supposedly was. I don’t buy that. It aggrandizes Bush and ties Obama to his sinking ship at the same time. It’s also patently false. Obama’s speech rings more of the Democratic Great Society era than of early 21st century compassionate conservatism.

At root, it doesn’t really matter how we label Obama’s speech. The bottom line is that he’s talking about important issues, connecting faith to progressivism, and doing what’s even more improbable — inspiring this cynical blogger.

I’ve never fully understood why people get so angry when famous Hollywood stars throw their celebrity behind an important social issue. That’s probably because they’re usually championing progressive policies with which I agree (well, except for Patricia Heaton who makes my skin crawl). Why not cheer when people who are overpaid and often overhyped actually use their fame for positive ends?

Case in point: Rapper Jim Jones’s recently released single excoriating the drug war and putting pressure on NY Governor Elliot Spitzer to live up to his campaign promises and reform New York’s harsh Rockefeller drug laws. The song, “Lockdown,” which Jones wrote with the help of the Drug Policy Alliance for an upcoming documentary of the same name, highlights the racially imbalanced effects of the War on Drugs . And Jones isn’t coy. He’s released a music video:

And here’s what he has to say for Spitzer:

“This one goes out to the governor. Gov. Spitzer. Eliot Spitzer, you say you want to make change? Well, we waitin’ on it. Matter of fact, we’re dependin’ on it.”

The Rockefeller laws were first reformed in 2004 with the passage of NY’s Drug Law Reform Act, but those reforms, touted as groundbreaking, have meant little practically:

Prisoners sentenced under mandatory minimum Rockefeller drug laws now number more than 13,000, and an astonishing 91% of them are black or brown. The reforms enacted in 2004 have resulted in the release of only 300, leaving thousands of prisoners serving mid-level mandatory minimum sentences still in purgatory.

So Spitzer’s got to keep his promise and push for real change. If not, because of Jones’s song, a lot more people will be ready to take him to task.

Sorry for the extended absence, kids. Between the beginning of work and my partner’s return from his year in Germany, it’s been a busy few days…

…but the bizarre news just keeps on comin’. The San Francisco Chronicle reported Wednesday (via TalkLeft) that Berkeley, that bastion of progressiveness, is struggling under the weight of its homeless problem. The city’s proposed solution? Ban smoking on city streets and then just arrest the homeless for smoking. Because they’re the most likely smokers, of course, and throwing them in jail will get them off the streets. The Chron has more:

As Mayor Tom Bates sees it, the alcoholics, meth addicts and the like who make up a good portion of the homeless population on Shattuck Avenue downtown and Telegraph Avenue on the south side of the UC Berkeley campus “almost always smoke.” And because smoking bans are the hot ticket these days for California cities, why not meld the two as part of a “comprehensive package” for dealing with the street problem that Bates says “has gone over the top”?

In this case, vagrants could be cited for taking a drag on the town’s main drags.

The program will be paid for by raising parking fees by fifty cents per hour around the city.

There are so many things wrong with this program that it’s hard to know where to begin. First, at least in NY, there are lots of people, homeless and homed, who smoke on city streets. Is the ordinance only going to be enforced against the homeless (which would be illegal selective prosecution)? And since when is the best way to reach out to the homeless to punish the behaviors that may have contributed to their predicament in the first place? While the mayor may be correct that many of the Berkeley homeless are meth users or are addicted to alcohol, fining or incarcerating them based on those addictions (and the addiction to nicotine) neither helps solve the level of homelessness nor addresses the cause of homelessness. If the mayor — and the progressive people of Berkeley — are really concerned about decreasing homelessness around their city, maybe they should consider providing support systems for homeless people, including drug treatment, mental health services, and — gasp! — help securing shelter. Laws like the Berkeley law make it even more difficult for the homeless to get off the streets: by ensuring criminal records and preventing access to social services, the city makes it harder for people to obtain and keep jobs.

At least there is one voice of reason in Berkeley. Kriss Worthington, a city Councilman who proposed a law in 2001 that would have prevented cops for ticketing people for sleeping on sidewalks (the law failed of course), recognized that the proposed law would accomplish little:

“My interest is in making things better for the homeless and business,” Worthington said. “And none of these things — a bunch of new laws — look like they will do.

You know what I think is bad or business? Having restaurants tell people they can’t step outside to smoke because they might be mistaken for a homeless person and arrested. Sheesh.

(also at Feministe).

I was a little worried when I saw the headline in today’s NY Times article: Revolving Door for Addicts Adds to Medicaid Cost. Often when I write about my opposition to the drug war, I encourage more widespread use of state-funded treatment programs (though NY is somewhat generous, most states are not). Was this article going to make that argument even less popular than it currently is?

Well, yes and no, and for the most part, the no’s win.

The Times article details the great expense of treating the 500 people in the state who most use and abuse the revolving door of Medicaid-funded treatment in the state. According to the article, those 500 alone cost the system $50 million annually. And that’s certainly a problem, particularly when that money could be spread out to help more people receive badly needed treatment. Those 500 are a drain on resources because they use drug treatment not as a way toward actually kicking their addictions, but rather as a break — a time to lower their resistance so they can get high on a lesser amount of expensive opiates and narcotics, a getaway even. As one former user puts it to the Times:

“I would tell myself I was just a brother who needed a rest, not somebody who had a problem,” he said. “I could mimic what they said with such grace and conviction, they would swear I was cured.”

But while this attitude is part of the reason for the system’s high cost, it’s neither the most central nor the most under state control to change. The real problem, it turns out, is the lack of homeless services which could treat the many needs that drive these 500 - and thousands of others - to seek expensive, inpatient addiction treatment:

The system suits the most frequent patients — most of them homeless, mentally ill, or both — who see the programs as a source of shelter and food. And the most expensive treatment, which usually involves some sedation, can reduce the discomfort of withdrawal better than other methods. [...]

But at its core, experts say, the overuse of costly inpatient programs is connected to the lack of housing for homeless people. People are less likely to admit themselves to hospitals, and more likely to adhere to treatment programs, when they are not living on the streets. For more than a decade, the city and state have invested in such housing, including some that accept residents who are not yet drug-free, but demand for housing still far exceeds supply.

Sure, the programs are expensive, but their cost can be controlled not through cutting badly needed treatment services, but through increasing funding for services that meet lower level needs, including temporary housing and food.

Another part of the problem is the structure of federal Medicaid, which in its infinite wisdom, will pay for in-hospital detox (the most expensive) but not inpatient treatment programs, which cost about the same as outpatient medically managed detox (which is explained in the article), and which are more effective long term. It’s a backwards policy that is having a disastrous impact not only on the state’s budget but also on the lives of the many people who could benefit from inpatient, community-based treatment. It seems like a common thread in American social policy, no? Plug a hole with your thumb but don’t figure out what caused the hole or how it might permanently be closed.

Also at LG&M.

From Jamie Spencer, Austin Criminal Defense Lawyer:

“Judges Can’t Sentence “Drugs” to Prison. Instead, they sentence people to prison. So let’s just be honest about it, and start calling it the ‘War on Drug Users’, OK?”

How right he is. Punishing drug addiction is unconstitutional since addiction is an illness, so we punish behaviors ancillary to drug addiction. But really, the war on drugs is a war on people who use drugs.

And, because of the sentencing disparities, mostly on poor people or people of color who use drugs. But to admit that might — gasp! — garner some sympathy for users and antipathy to the government’s approach to them. And we can’t have that.

via Coleslaw; cross-posted at LG&M.

Apparently, not only is our War on Drugs devastating poor neighborhoods in communities of color in the U.S., it’s also hurting the poor in South America.

According to Benjamin Dangl’s new book, excerpted on AlterNet, the War on Drugs is hitting coca farmers, who are legal and unionized in Bolivia, particularly hard.

Admittedly, I haven’t read the whole book yet, only this excerpt, but I have to say that the thesis that the drug war is having that impact surprises me. I would think that by driving up the price of cocaine in the U.S., the drug war would help those farming it in South America. But I suppose that’s naive — it’s probably putting more money in the pockets of the importers but helping keep the farmers powerless to lobby for better protection and pay.

It’s an interesting - and unexpected - effect of disastrous domestic policy, and it’s worth checking out.

Oh, and check out my most recent post at LG&M.

At the National Advocates for Pregnant Women conference in January, I met a few women who work with an organization called Birth Attendants. I was inspired and meant to blog about them. Their work bridges the two major interests of this blog (and by extension, of mine): reproductive health and the criminal justice system. But of course in the flurry of news this winter and the slog of law school, I forgot.

Which is why I was thrilled to see that Radical Doula reminded me with her own post about them.

The Birth Attendants are a group of doulas who work with women who give birth while incarcerated. An estimated 4-9% of women who enter prison are pregnant at the time of their incarceration, which means that there are hundreds or thousands of births in U.S. prisons each year. In many states, those women give birth in shackles, which is not only inhumane, but also poses significant health risks to women and their babies.

The Birth Attendants fight against this through both community education and through assisting in-prison births in Washington (state). They provide prenatal, labor, and postpartum support to women who are incarcerated. Women who otherwise might give birth in squalid conditions and in an environment totally lacking in support and encouragement. Their community education classes teach the wider Washington community about incarceration’s effects on families and communities.

It’s amazing that this organization is doing such vital work. But in addition to just praising the Birth Attendants (which I am happy to do), their work (and this post) should highlight the the abominable conditions of confinement for pregnant and birthing women who are incarcerated. This is an issue that bridges the right-left “pro-life” vs. pro-repro-rights debate. For the pro-lifers, there’s the concern about protecting fetal and infant health (screw the women). For those of us concerned with reproductive health, it’s a no brainer.

Jeralyn at TalkLeft tonight published a truly heartbreaking letter from a middle-aged woman about to serve 9 years in federal prison for trying to buy the painkillers to which she had become addicted. The letter is an indictment not only of the “war on drugs” but also of prosecutorial discretion and the American criminal justice system as a whole.

I’m posting the letter in full (or at least as fully as Jeralyn did). Please read it.

In 2 months I have to self-surrender to prison for 9 years, for Conspiracy to distribute drugs, near a school. (You cannot even see the school from my house..) I am a 46 year old single mother of 4, grandmother of 4. I have no prior record. I was a successful business owner and very active in my community for 20 years. I hurt my back, working hard to support my children. The doctor gave me prescribed pain medication and I got addicted. I was entrapped into a drug deal for buying and selling 8 pills, to a snitch. They raided my home and locked me up. I spent a horrible week detoxing in jail. The judge sent me to addiction treatment center, suggested by the prosecution, and I have over 1 year clean.

(more…)

HBO recently aired its Addiction documentary. I haven’t seen it yet (no HBO), but I’m planning to watch it all online here as soon as I come up for air. The documentary, a long overdue project, aims to help explain addiction to drugs and alcohol, a widespread problem in American society that is little understood.

In connection with the film, John Hoffman, one of the film’s creators, posted a column at HuffPo. He writes:

realize now that for me and many others, understanding addiction is a profound challenge. My producing partner, Susan Froemke, and I engaged in hundreds of hours of conversation with research scientists, physicians, psychiatrists, government leaders, treatment providers, treatment advocates, people in recovery, people actively using, families of active users, as well as families of those in recovery, twelve-step advocates, and experts studying how addiction affects the workplace. And yet, with every available resource at our disposal we still found it terribly difficult to attain a comprehensive, working understanding of the topic.

[...]

Addiction, as it turns out, is a problem that is messy–riddled with misconceptions, profoundly lacking in nationally recognized treatment standards, and highly stigmatized.

The question/problem of addiction ties together the two main threads of this blog: the drug war/criminal justice and the prosecution of pregnant women who give birth despite a drug problem. In both situations, I think, addiction is severely misunderstood. In the case of the criminal justice system, drug addiction is not a crime (per the Supreme Court case Robinson v. California from 1972), but possession is a crime — often a felony. So people are still being punished (severely) for their drug addictions. In the realm of prosecuting pregnant women, addiction is misunderstood several fold. First, prosecutors and judges blame women for not being able to kick their addictions without the help of treatment or even after a single treatment enrollment. What they fail to understand — and what this HBO documentary addresses — is that addiction is a lifelong illness and that recovery must include some understanding of the likelihood of temporary relapse. When it comes to prosecuting pregnant women, prosecutors and judges also misunderstand the dangers posed to fetuses. Ever since the 1980s, there has been a persistent fear of “crack babies.” What people don’t realize is that “crack babies” don’t exist; the symptoms often associated iwth crack are caused by poverty and all that that includes (lack of prenatal care, lack of proper nutrition, higher frequencies of domestic violence).

The filmmakers seem to believe that things are improving:

The biggest change in addiction is the growing acceptance by the medical community and the general population that addiction is a chronic relapsing brain disease. A vivid contributor to this change in attitude is the fact that science now gives us the ability to see inside the brains of addicted people. We can see that the addicted brain is different; that it’s damaged. With brain research has arrived great advances in the medical treatment of addiction and the promise of even more effective treatments to come. The advances in medications for alcoholism are so great that leading experts in this field will tell you that there is now reason for every alcoholic to use these medications (naltrexone and acamprosate) to help control their cravings.

Another shift is the increasing understanding that addiction is often coupled with other mental disorders and that these problems and the addiction must be treated simultaneously or the chances of a sustained recovery are slim. Approximately forty percent of addicts suffer from co-occurring mental disorders.

But these improvements are all outside the world of arrests, courts, and prisons.

Fundamentally, the criminal justice system in the U.S. does not understand addiction. And doesn’t try to.

The War on Drugs is one of the most obviously racist American policies (and there are lots to choose from). There have been peeps recently about getting rid of one of the worst laws — the federal crack/cocaine sentencing disparity — but from what I can tell, they seem to have stalled.

But at least we haven’t stopped making noise. Arianna Huffington, writing on AlterNet today, calls for the 2008 presidential candidates (particularly the dems) to take up this issue. So far, not a single candidate has. Not Edwards. Not Obama. Not Clinton, who lives down the road from Bedford Hills, NY’s women’s maximum security facility, in which 48% of the incarcerated women were convicted of non-violent drug offenses, almost 80% are black or latino, and many are mothers. Only Kucinich has anything to say on the issue (and gets it pretty much right).

The racism inherent in Drug War policies is blatant:

ccording to a 2006 report by the American Civil Liberties Union, African Americans make up an estimated 15% of drug users, but they account for 37% of those arrested on drug charges, 59% of those convicted and 74% of all drug offenders sentenced to prison. Or consider this: The U.S. has 260,000 people in state prisons on nonviolent drug charges; 183,200 (more than 70%) of them are black or Latino.

As Huffington points out, these statistics are nothing new. They’ve been thrown around for years. (Bill) Clinton knew them when he let 8 years of his presidency slide by without doing a single thing to stop the Drug War. Oh, except, Huffington notes, for the op-ed piece five days before the end of his second term. Way to go, Bill (he was a progressive president?).

And Bush? Huffington says that she was told to expect results:

I remember in 1999 asking Dan Bartlett, then the campaign spokesman for candidate George W. Bush, about Bush’s position on the outrageous disparity between the sentences meted out for possession of crack cocaine and those given for possession of powder cocaine — a disparity that has helped fill U.S. prisons with black low-level drug users (80% of sentenced crack defendants are black). Federal sentencing guidelines dictate that judges impose the same five-year prison sentence for possession of five grams of crack or 500 grams of powder cocaine.

“The different sentencing for crack cocaine and powder cocaine is something that there’s no doubt needs to be addressed,” Bartlett told me. But in the more than six years since Bush and Bartlett moved into the White House, the problem has gone unaddressed. No doubt about it.

Like so much else in the Bush administration, the President has failed on this. Huffington seems to have hope that he might still take action. i think that hope is misplaced. Especially given the fact that Bush came out a couple of months ago against reforming the crack/cocaine sentencing disparity.

So if none of the Democratic leaders are taking action here, and the President isn’t either, who is doing anything to end the drug war?

The injustice is so egregious that a conservative senator, Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), is now leading the charge in Congress to ease crack sentences. “I believe that as a matter of law enforcement and good public policy, crack cocaine sentences are too heavy and can’t be justified,” he said. “People don’t want us to be soft on crime, but I think we ought to make the law more rational.”

This is the same Jeff Sessions who recently called for better support for men and women re-entering society after incarceration.

It gives me a funny knot in my stomach to realize that a conservative Republican from Alabama, who is about as bad as it gets on the feminist issues I care about, is beating the hell out of my Democratic hopefuls on the criminal justice issues I care about.