As the Des Moines Register reported yesterday, the Mayor of Jamaica, Iowa and her husband were busted two days earlier at about 4:20 p.m. (no joke) for growing 18 marijuana plants inside their home. The various related charges include a Class “D” Felony for the manufacture and possession with intent to deliver less than 50 kilograms of marijuana.
It’s a shame that our laws in Iowa still make it a crime to do something that is peaceful, voluntary, and uses no force or fraud against others. Marijuana prohibition laws do little to make our state safer, and yet do great harm to people who are victimized by them. In this case, if these two people are found guilty of the felony, they could be sentenced for up to 5 years in prison, be required to pay up to $7,500, lose their voting rights, be disqualified for military service or student loans, and more. Compare that to the fact that nothing happens to a person in her home who is found to be brewing 5 gallons of beer – a standard home-brew batch – and possessing, say, 10 to 20 more gallons that were brewed earlier.
Marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol, and yet today we see the same unintended consequences resulting from drug prohibition that we saw from alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and early 1930s: violence, deaths from impure products, and the arrest and punishment of people who are otherwise honest and peaceful. Make no mistake, the violence associated with the illegal drug trade is caused by prohibition laws. If Walgreens moves into a community, CVS doesn’t send out a gang to kill them. When drugs are delivered to a pharmacy, both parties don’t carry weapons to protect themselves. Instead, they call the police if someone uses violence against them. But you can’t can’t call the police for help if you’re dealing in illegal drugs.
We need to follow the trend in other states and around the world: Legalize recreational marijuana and treat addiction using a medical model, just like alcohol. Let your elected representatives know your feelings. That is the way to get these unjust laws changed.
The Des Moines Register recently reported that 36 Iowa counties have joined in a law suit against opioid makers. (See link to Register article below.) Two law firms are enlisting counties across the country to go after drug manufacturers and others for the costs of the opioid crisis. There is no cost to the counties. If successful, the “Lawyers will be awarded a portion of the settlement, …” (Interesting that the word “settlement” is used instead of “judgment”.)
What is often missing in much of the opioid crisis discussion is how our government’s policy of prohibition has made a bad situation even worse. When a person becomes physically addicted to opioids, they will do almost anything to get the drugs they want. If the drugs are not available legally, or if legal drugs cost too much, addicts will find illegal alternatives. According to the CDC, 60% of opioid deaths do not involve prescription opioids. That is, in 60% of opioid deaths the person who died was using illegal opioids. (See CDC reference below.) A significant problem with illegal drugs is that is no way to assure the quality and potency of the drugs. In the case of opioids, that leads to inadvertent over-doses because the illegal drug was much more powerful than thought.
If opioid addicts were able to readily get prescription methadone or other FDA approved opioids at reasonable costs, many deaths would be prevented. That would also take the profit out of the illegal opioid drug trade. If opioid addicts were treated under a medical model rather than a criminal model, it is likely that more opioid addicts would seek help to solve their addiction problem. But as it is, under our drug war, prohibition policy, addicts have good reason to not seek help.
As The Des Moines Register reported on 10/13/2016, “Black Iowans are seven times more likely to be arrested for drug possession than white Iowans…” (See link below.) Drug possession. A crime without a victim. Arrests that create a criminal record that seriously negatively affects a person’s ability to get a job.
Even if blacks do possess illegal drugs at a rate seven times more than whites, which I very much doubt, treating possession of any drug as a crime is clearly unfair, if not racist. Why don’t people get arrested for “possession” if they are caught with a six pack of beer? Why aren’t people be arrested and charged with “intent to deliver” if they are caught with more than a case of beer? Why aren’t people charged with a more serious crime if they are caught with high alcohol content distilled spirits, which are surely more dangerous?
We need to end the immoral and impractical drug wars. The correct and reasonable thing to do is to legalize and regulate the manufacture, sale and use of all drugs, just like alcohol, tobacco, and prescription drugs. Just like with alcohol, fair regulations would include protecting our children, and prohibiting driving vehicles while intoxicated. In any case, we need to end prohibition.
Link to Register article: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2016/10/12/iowa-ranks-2nd-worst-racial-disparities-drug-arrests/91958452/
The Des Moines Register recently ran an editorial about how the Iowa State Patrol appears to be targeting out-of-state cars travelling through Iowa to try to find assets to seize using our current civil asset forfeiture laws. (See link below.)
One obvious possible reason why out-of-state cars might be targeted is that it would help keep seized property flowing to law enforcement agencies, while keeping political heat off of this problem. Out-of-state drivers don’t vote in Iowa, and they don’t have an elected Iowa representative to call to complain.
It is clearly unjust that we allow our government to take property from people who are not charged with a crime, and then put the burden of proof on them to prove their innocence in order to get their property back. It is hard to believe that this does not violate both our Iowa and U.S. Constitutional right to due process. Also, in many cases, law enforcement agencies get to keep the property that they confiscate! This clear conflict of interest should not be tolerated.
Last year in the Iowa Legislature, a bill was introduced in the Iowa Senate that would have put a stop to this injustice, but it never got out of committee. The Senate Judiciary Committee chair, Steven Sodders of State Center, never acted on the bill, so it died in committee. He is a deputy sheriff in Marshall County. If you would like to see end to civil asset forfeiture in Iowa, contact Senator Sodders and let him know we need and expect his help this year.
Thanks to the Register and Kathie Obradovich for the essay about the failure of our federal legislators to include reform of civil asset forfeiture laws in the Criminal Justice and Corrections Reform and Corrections Act of 2015. (10/8/2015 – “Will Justice reform leave out forfeiture abuse?”)
It really is terrible that we have laws that allow law enforcement officers to confiscate property without charging any person for any crime, and that allow law enforcement agencies to keep most of what they take. Once property is seized, the burden of proof shifts to the owner of the property to prove that the property was not used in any crime…. guilty until proven innocent.
As you reported, reforms were introduced in the Iowa Senate last spring, but missed a committee deadline. What you did not report was that the committee that failed to move forward with those reforms is chaired by Steve Sodders from State Center, who is a Deputy Sheriff in Marshall County. As the Register printed last spring, (4/16/15, “Panelists: Reform Iowa civil forfeiture law”) Sodders thinks the answer is to have the State of Iowa pay for an attorney to help owners try to get their property back. He did not express any interest making reforms that would bring back the presumption of innocent until proven guilty, or that would correct the conflict of interest problem that allows law enforcement agencies to keep much of what they seize, or that would provide for public reporting of all assets seized.
Bills that would right these wrongs will likely be introduced again next year. We all must put pressure on the Iowa Legislature to get these reforms passed.
Today, the Des Moines Register reported on the decision by the grand jury in Polk County to not indict the Des Moines police officer who shot an unarmed man. (8/27/2015 – “No charges against D.M. officer” – see link below) You reported that the prosecutor, Polk County Attorney John Sarcone, said, “This was the eighth fatal police shooting reviewed by a Polk County grand jury since 2007, all of which ended with jurors choosing not to indict.”
Since the grand jury process is highly secret, we don’t know what facts or arguments were presented to the grand jury. With what we do know, it is hard to imagine that there should be no charges whatsoever brought against the officer.
The prosecutor and the police depend on having a trusting and friendly relationship. Because of this relationship, the prosecutor clearly has conflict of interest . The prosecutor could quite easily have a significant bias towards not indicting police officers. Actually, that is why we have the grand jury system – to have the decision whether or not to indict be made by unbiased citizens. But the system is flawed. The entire process is secret, and is led by the prosecutor. It is not difficult to imagine that the prosecutor could exert significant influence on the grand jury to not indict, and then be off the hook politically because he did not make the decision. Did that happen in this case? We will never know because of the secrecy of the process.
We should either make the process public and transparent, or get rid of the grand jury system for police shootings.