- Joined
- Jan 23, 2013
- Messages
- 30,589
By way of introduction, my name is Jeff Kuckuck and I work on Congressman Ribble’s legislative staff.
Thank you for contacting Congressman Ribble about the McClintock-Polis amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations bill. While Rep. Ribble voted for this amendment, it unfortunately did not pass the House of Representatives. However, the Congressman continues to believe that states should have the authority to make their own laws regarding marijuana and will continue to keep your thoughts on this issue in mind.
Thank you again for contacting our office.
Sincerely,
Jeff Kuckuck
Legislative Correspondent
Office of Congressman Ribble (WI-08)
1513 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-5665
In a photo supplied by the U.S. Attorney’s office, scores of people can be seen lining up to purchase heroin on the 3700 block of West Grenshaw.
CHICAGO (June 26, 2015) — Federal and local law enforcement officials dismantled a large drug operation in Chicago on Wednesday.
In a federal complaint, authorities said 42 defendants had either been arrested or had been named in an arrest warrant.
During the roundup, DEA agents along with Chicago Police officers seized twelve firearms, $50,000 in cash and nearly a half-kilogram of heroin along with cocaine during yesterday’s arrests.
The complaint also alleges James Triplett, 33 of Berkley, was a wholesale supplier of heroin who controlled an entire block with his operation, which included “shift workers” for all hours of the day.
A photo showing people lined up at Triplett’s house was included in the federal complaint.
The neighborhood is located just off the Eisenhower expressway and is often referred to as “heroin highway” because of the easy access to the western suburbs as well as the city.
It's Time to End Mass Incarceration
The United States is home to less than 5 percent of the world’s population but nearly 25 percent of its prisoners.
More than half a million people will go to sleep in a prison cell tonight in the U.S. for nothing more than a drug law violation.
We must reduce the number of people swept into the criminal justice system for drug law violations, while creating new drug policies grounded in science, health and human rights.
Join the fight to end mass incarceration!
Last week, I attended an event at the White House as a representative of DPA and it felt like a real turning point in the debate on the war on drugs. I want to share my story with you.
Community leaders from more than 30 city, county, and state jurisdictions convened in Washington D.C. to discuss an innovative program known as Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, or LEAD.
Pioneered in Seattle, LEAD greatly improves public health and achieves better safety outcomes by diverting people from arrest and connecting them with harm reduction services.
Police divert individuals who commit low-level drug offenses to health-based case management services — instead of trapping them in a broken criminal justice system. An independent evaluation found that LEAD reduced the likelihood of re-offending by nearly 60 percent.
I sat in the White House and heard prosecutors and police chiefs get up and call on this country to stop the harmful and ineffective practice of arresting and incarcerating people for low-level drug offenses. I was greatly inspired.
To be inside the White House, the epicenter of mass incarceration and the war on drugs, listening to top White House staff condemn these disastrous policies was almost surreal. The conversation was not if we should end mass incarceration, but how.
Supporters like you have helped us come a long way and this convening represents a dramatic shift in the way we think of drug use as a country. Drug use is a health issue, not a criminal justice one, and it’s inspiring to finally see our work pay off as top leaders begin to recognize that and take action.
DPA is working to bring LEAD programs to cities across the country and I encourage you to read more about LEAD’s success and check out our fact sheet.
If you believe as I do that no one should go to jail for low-level drug offenses, then please sign our petition to end mass incarceration now.
Thanks for standing with us in the fight for drug policies grounded in science, compassion, health and human rights.
Sincerely,
Lynne Lyman
State Director, California
Drug Policy Alliance
Oh thanks..Sigmond why do you always delete your posts.. they are good posts and you may consider leaving them up for others to read.
August 23, 2015
Dear Friend,
With statistics ranging from the danger of using drugs like marijuana to the astronomically high incarceration rate seen in our country today, the debate around marijuana’s legal status is growing louder.
Those who believe that the drug should remain illegal point to marijuana’s addictiveness, its ability to serve as a gateway drug for more dangerous substances, and the changes that it causes in mood, behavior, and judgment in users. They may also point out the toxicity of the smoke itself. They may believe that it should be used medicinally in a very controlled capacity, or oppose its use entirely.
Supporters of legalization point to medicinal uses of the drug, particularly for those with epilepsy, cancer, and chronic pain. They also share the almost nonexistent rates of injury due to overdose, and stories of young people whose lives are turned upside down with extremely long mandatory prison sentences for non-violent marijuana-related offences.
Public opinion on marijuana use is varied, and I am interested to know where you stand.
What do you personally believe about recreational marijuana use?
a.) It is illegal, immoral, and dangerous.
b.) It is illegal and immoral, but is not a dangerous substance.
c.) It is illegal and dangerous to your health, but not immoral.
d.) It is illegal, but would not be problematic otherwise.
e.) Don't know/none of these.
What are your views on medical marijuana use?
a.) It is illegal, immoral, and unlikely to help people.
b.) It is likely to be abused more than it helps people.
c.) It has real therapeutic properties and should be available as an option for doctors to prescribe.
d.) It has valuable therapeutic properties and should be available over-the-counter.
e.) Don't know/none of these.
What do you think federal government policy should be on marijuana?
a.) No change from current policy.
b.) It should remain illegal but with reduced penalties.
c.) It should remain illegal except for medical use with a prescription.
d.) It should remain illegal except for over-the-counter medical use.
e.) It should be legalized federally and states should be left to make their own decisions.
f.) Don't know/none of these.
What do you think of how the federal government is currently handling marijuana-related crime prosecution and sentencing?
a.) Prosecution and penalties are too light and should be strengthened.
b.) Marijuana-related crimes are being prosecuted and penalized at about the right level.
c.) Marijuana-related crimes are being punished much too harshly.
d.) There should be no federal penalties and states should be left to decide.
e.) Don't know/none of these.
Do you have any additional thoughts you would like to share?
Click to open in a separate window
I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts!
Sincerely,
Reid Ribble
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st.../2015/10/11/editorial-end-war-drugs/73588466/Editorial: End the war on drugs
October 11, 2015
The war on drugs is over.
After more than 30 years of escalating criminalization of drug abuse, this nation is finally admitting defeat.
Drug abuse is still a problem, but more people recognize that the “drug war” mentality created more problems than it has solved: Millions of Americans have been left with criminal records; prisons are filled beyond capacity; families have been devastated.
Nearly 7 million Americans are under the supervision of adult corrections systems, including probation and parole. More than 2.2 million people are in federal and state prisons and local jails, a 500 percent increase in the past 40 years.
It’s more than just over-criminalizing drugs, however, and there is growing recognition that the crackdown on crime dating back to the Nixon administration was a massive mistake at both federal and community levels. Voices calling for sentencing reform range from religious leaders to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to Republican political mega-donor Charles Koch.
A sentencing-reform bill introduced Oct. 1 in the U.S. Senate represents the clearest evidence of how dramatically attitudes have changed at both ends of the political spectrum. Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois are the lead sponsors, and three other Democrats and four Republicans signed on as co-sponsors.
Proposed reforms a sea change
The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015 is described by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University as “the most meaningful reform to our criminal justice system in a generation.” That is a fair assessment given the fact that the legislation would for the first time scale back mandatory-minimum sentences, one of the most draconian federal sentencing practices.
In addition to reducing the number of mandatory sentences, this legislation would eliminate a three-strikes penalty carrying a lifetime imprisonment, expand “safety valves” that give judges more sentencing discretion with nonviolent low-level offenders, shaves years of some mandatory drug sentences and offers prison inmates early release incentives to participate in programs aimed at improving their chances of success upon release from prison.
Some of the sentence reforms are retroactive, following case-by-case judicial review, meaning they apply not to just new offenders but those already serving long sentences.
That is a sea change. Mandatory-minimum sentences, which fix a period of years with criminal convictions, are a one-size-fits-all approach that eliminates discretion by judges who traditionally set sentences based on the unique circumstances of unique defendants. Getting Grassley on board is remarkable by itself, given that just a few months ago the Iowa senator was trashing the very idea of this move.
Grassley and other defenders of current law say mandatory minimums are an essential tool in locking up drug “kingpins.” But a big share of those locked up were low-level offenders pressured to plead guilty by prosecutors who threaten long sentences if they gamble on a trial and lose. As a result, more than half of the federal prison population consists of drug offenders, many serving decades-long sentences with no chance for early release and little opportunity in life once they leave prison.
The proposed sentencing reforms come just as some 6,000 inmates are being released from federal prisons across the country — including about 200 Iowans who will be released early by the end of the year, with more early releases scheduled in coming years. These inmates are being released early as the result of the U.S. Sentencing Commission's decision to change sentencing guidelines for non-violent drug crimes last year. This was described by the New York Times as “one of the largest discharges of inmates from federal prisons in American history,” and a similar number of federal inmates could potentially be eligible for early release under the sentencing reform legislation.
Iowa should get on board with reforms
Important as these sentencing reforms are, they only scratch the surface. Unless there are more dramatic reforms, most of the 2 million men and women (and, sadly, juveniles) will remain in prison for many more years. Let's harness the recognition from both ends of the political spectrum that change is needed to produce a radical reform of criminal-justice system.
That means eliminating or reducing more prison sentences for victimless crimes by non-violent offenders. It means reeling in excessive powers of prosecutors and assuring that all criminal defendants have competent defense counsel, at public expense if necessary. It means shifting spending from soul-destroying prisons to education and drug treatment that will truly reform lives.
Iowa has a far smaller percentage of its population in prison than other states, but this state should continue working on sentencing reforms being discussed by a Working Group on Justice Policy Reform, created by Gov. Terry Branstad. Among those would be reducing Iowa’s mandatory-minimum sentences, which have a disproportionate impact on African-American prison inmates. Drug courts should be created in every county to divert people with drug problems from prison. And the Iowa Legislature should fully fund the Public Safety Advisory Board, which was created to give legislators meaningful data on the impact of proposed criminal sentencing bills.
Lawmakers and opinion leaders in this state should embrace the growing national sentiment that this country has gone badly off the rails with mass incarceration. It should no longer be a sign of political manhood to be “tough on crime” but to be realistic about what behavior should be outlawed, and the social and fiscal cost of those criminal penalties. The goal of a criminal justice system is to reform and change lives, not to make them worse.
Yeah get posting jammin.
That and if you know of any smoken blond dready ladies, with hearts of pure gold and the horns of a devil, please send them my way.