Michelle Alexander Urges “Victories for All of Us”

Sanya Singh Collateral Consequences, IL, Legalization, Racial Inequality

 Following are key excerpts from the full text, available here. In so many ways this is the best and worst of times for drug policy reform.  There has been an extraordinary tidal wave of … successes—mind-blowing victories for marijuana decriminalization and legalization, due in no small part to the brilliant and strategic advocacy of people in this very room. And yet, … in the very same moment, we face an unprecedented drug crisis in this country. Drug overdoses are at a record high, making the crack epidemic seem somewhat mild by comparison. America has 4% of the world’s population and 27% of the world’s overdose deaths. … There is an outcry over the opioid crisis, but it’s relatively new considering the magnitude of the crisis.  And I know that I am not alone in being struck by the drastic difference between the two recent drug epidemics that have swept this nation—opioids and crack [cocaine]. The crack epidemic killed just a tiny fraction of those who are dying of opioid overdoses today.  And yet a literal war was declared on the users of crack—a purely punitive, militaristic war.  Today the opioid crisis is much, much worse.  And yet there is no wall-to-wall media coverage demonizing and shaming opioid drug users and dealers.…Things are very, very different this time around, and we all know why.  Whiteness makes the difference. If the overwhelming majority of the users and dealers of opioids today were black rather than white, we wouldn’t have police chiefs competing with each other over whose department is showing more compassion for people struggling with drug addiction… I’m concerned about the cyclical nature of reform and retrenchment in this country, particularly with respect to race. The great legislative victories for legalizing marijuana in several states did not occur in a vacuum.  They occurred on the very same night that Donald Trump was elected President of the United States. …From where I sit, there is no paradox, no mystery at all. There is a common denominator underlying both this drug reform victory and the election of Donald Trump. It is called whiteness. While some may argue that the racial justice gains of the Obama election were symbolic, the symbolism was powerful, and deeply disturbing to millions, inciting an electoral backlash that we should have seen coming. … The movement convened right here in this room stands at a critical crossroad.  What happens in the months and years to come will likely determine whether our movement succeeds or fails in the long run. And I don’t think it is an overstatement to say the path we ultimately choose may have enormous implications for the success and failure of our democracy as a whole. … I want to challenge all of us here today to think big, to go big, or stay home.  Let’s be reckless, throw caution to the winds?  Not at all.  But I say … we must begin to think bigger—much, much bigger, beyond drug policy—and consider more carefully how drug policy fits into the bigger picture of American democracy.  Any victory that is dependent on whiteness in whole or in part is truly not a victory for us all. For some advocates, making race central means quoting a lot of racial disparity data. It means posting to social media the latest, most horrific thing that Donald Trump has said. I’m not a fan of this approach.  Nearly all of the available research shows that merely sharing racial disparity data without a great deal of political and social and historical context, and lots of story-telling, only confirms pre-existing racial stereotypes and biases. … Mark Mauer, in his excellent book Race to Incarcerate, provides data showing that the most punitive nations in the world are the most diverse.  The nations with the most compassionate or the most lenient criminal justice policies are the most homogeneous. We like to say that diversity is our strength; it may actually be our Achilles heel. Can we evolve morally and spiritually to learn to care for each other across lines of race and class, gender and sexuality, across all forms of difference?  Clearly, these questions are pressing in the Age of Trump.  These are also the very questions that we must be asking regardless of who is president. The good news is that this drug policy [reform movement] presents incredible opportunities for reimagining what our democracy can and should be. We have the opportunity to educate people of all colors about how our racial history defines us all.  We have the opportunity to demonstrate how the same forms of racially divisive politics that helped to birth the drug war and mass incarceration are playing out all over again in strikingly similar fashion, this time leading to a system of mass deportation on a scale rarely seen in human history. Few issues, few causes, few movements provide a better opportunity to practice reparation. We have a lot to learn.  As a nation, we don’t have a lot of practice repairing historical harms caused to poor people and people of color.  But we can get started in a real way in this movement, right here and right now. Finally, this movement gives us a chance to talk about capitalism, our culture of ruthless competition and individualism, its possible role in creating so much of the despair that makes the United States the world leader in drug addiction as well as incarceration. If we choose to think big, really big, and deliberately align our drug policy with the larger work of building a thriving multiracial, multiethnic democracy that truly honors the lives of all of us, a world of possibilities begins to emerge.  Suddenly we’re not just fighting isolated drug policy reform battles anymore, we’re steadily building the foundation for a new way of life together. I hope and pray that one day when the history of this movement is written, that it will be said that we, those of us in this room today, vowed to do more than win kinder, fairer, more compassionate drug policy.  Instead, we committed ourselves to a revolution, to placing racial justice at the center of our world, and committed ourselves with all the courage we can muster to building a New America.

Mass Incarceration and Criminal Justice Reform

Rev. Saeed Richardson Harm Reduction, IL, Protestant Perspectives, Tax and Regulate

CNDP has been working with St. Chrysostom’s Episcopal Church in Chicago to develop a series of Sunday forums throughout the fall on Mass Incarceration and Criminal Justice Reform. Here is Rev. Al Sharp’s presentation at the opening forum on September 10. We urge you to attend future sessions. To see other messages and learn more, visit the St. Chrysostom’s Adult Forum website.

A Muslim perspective on striving for justice in American drug policy

Marijuana Legalization: Interpreting the Evidence

Rev. Alexander E. Sharp IL, Tax and Regulate

Two Illinois legislators, Rep. Kelly Cassidy (D-14) and Sen. Heather Steans (D-7), have recently filed bills that would legalize marijuana for recreational use in Illinois. They are gathering the widest possible public comment. Two weeks ago they held a joint House-Senate committee hearing to elicit the views of law enforcement. We heard from police chiefs and state’s attorneys from across Illinois. Not surprisingly, they oppose reform. Why not? They’ve spent their entire careers enforcing the status quo. They had a full opportunity to present their views. However, it was the testimony of two individuals from outside Illinois that provided the most useful comments. Lewis Koski is from Colorado, one of the first two states, along with Washington, to legalize marijuana in 2012. He had designed and enforced regulations for marijuana legalization in Colorado. “Data gets waterboarded to make it say what you want it to say,” he observed. Data is continuing to develop. You need to identify what data points you want.” He warned against anecdotal evidence and finding correlations where they may not exist. Neill Franklin, who for served with the Maryland and Baltimore police forces for 34 years, also testified. He is now executive director of Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP), which seeks public safety solutions and includes a speakers’ bureau of retired law enforcement officers opposing marijuana prohibition based on their own field experience. Franklin’s comments are compelling: “We are funding organized crime syndicates and other criminals with billions every year. As with alcohol prohibition, we have driven a very large profit-generating industry underground and into the shadows, where marijuana peddlers battle each other in the streets of Chicago and other cities for market share. “Neighborhoods under siege, cops at war, tens of thousands of arrests (most for mere possession), disparity issues where in this state (Illinois) blacks are 7 times more likely to be arrested than their Caucasian counterparts, and this leads to very poor police-community relations… “Unfortunately in policing we have become obsessed with numbers and too many of my law enforcement comrades believe that more arrests translate into good policing. That may be true when arresting violent offenders, but not in this case and marijuana possession arrests are the easiest to make. Fact – police-community relations improve when we move away from mass arrests enforcement and focus on violent crime.” (Click to see full transcript) Why is this outside testimony so valuable? Because it offers what only someone from the outside can provide. Few of us are very good at questioning the basic assumptions that guide our lives. Police chiefs and state’s attorneys are no less exempt than the rest of us. The Illinois law enforcement officials asserted three things above all else: marijuana is a gateway drug, that is, using it leads to more dangerous drug use; marijuana causes juvenile criminal activity; and legalization will lead to an increase in teen use. The first two points are based on correlation, not cause. At best, they are misleading. They are not convincing arguments for marijuana prohibition. Concerning increased teen use, evidence is mounting that just the opposite is the case. One week after the hearing, the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) released findings that marijuana use nationally by teens is declining, and that no teen increase has occurred in states where legalization has been enacted. As Lewis Koski told us, no single survey should be taken as definitive, but this evidence is promising indeed. May the hearings continue.

Illinois Proposes Legalizing Marijuana

Rev. Alexander E. Sharp IL, Tax and Regulate

CNDP staff participated in a press conference Wednesday morning to announce legislation that would legalize marijuana in Illinois. House Bill 2353 and Senate Bill 316 would permit adults to purchase up to one ounce of cannabis from a licensed store. All cannabis would be taxed at the state’s sale tax of 6.25%. We introduced the newly formed Coalition for a Safer Illinois that will support the bills. Included are: Law Enforcement for Action Partnership (LEAP), Doctors for Cannabis Regulation (DFCR), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Illinois Chapter of the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), Students for a Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), and the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP).

Asset Forfeiture = Theft

Rev. Saeed Richardson Ending Forfeiture Seizure, IL, Protestant Perspectives

In November of 2015, the Washington Post reported that in the previous year law enforcement had taken more property from people – including cash, automobiles, and even homes – than burglars had stolen. Burglary losses amounted to $3.5 billion, while, shockingly, the net asset of police seizures amounted to $4.5 billion. (via The Institute for Justice) More disturbingly, this number reflected only federal statistics, and not seizures by state police and local law enforcement, data that in most cases is extremely difficult to obtain. Law enforcement utilizes a practice known as civil asset forfeiture to permanently confiscate property they perceive to be involved in criminal activity. This is done without requiring officers to prove the person or the property is guilty and/or connected to criminal activity. The process to reclaim one’s property in the event of seizure is legally complex, expensive, and time-sensitive, making the extreme majority of assets logistically impossible for most people to reclaim. Furthermore, law enforcement is inherently incentivized to persist the practice as all funds obtained through asset forfeiture are re-directed to the operating budgets of their respective departments.