Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Sen. James Webb of Virginia is working to pass a bill that would establish a commission to look at our entire criminal justice system, top to bottom, and make recommendations for reform; Sen. Charles Grassley is trying to make sure that commission can't even consider the possibility of decriminalizing or legalizing any currently illegal substances.
Grassley has proposed an amendment to that bill that would prohibit the commission from even considering any changes to the Controlled Substances Act:
The Commission shall have no authority to make findings related to current Federal, State, and local criminal justice policies and practices or reform recommendations that involve, support, or otherwise discuss the decriminalization of any offense under the Controlled Substances Act or the legalization of any controlled substance listed under the Controlled Substances Act.
They can't even discuss the possibility under Grassley's absurd amendment. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) has launched a campaign to defeat this amendment by sending emails to your legislators, which I urge you all to do by following the link above. Ending the disastrous war on drugs is the single most important thing we could do to reform our criminal justice system.
Politics
Comments
Surely the mere fact that they would bother to suggest such an amendment means that they know the war on drugs is counter-productive. If they were sure it was working efficiently, an investigation wouldn't be a threat.
Posted by: Jefrir | November 4, 2009 9:29 AM
Pfft; There's an excellent way to respond to Mr. Grassley's amendment; Ignore it. So what if it passes? What's he going to do to the commissioners if they decide to consider these things? Send in the bailiffs to arrest them? Heck, considering that, to be at all effective, this commission will have to spend much of its time on the road hearing testimony, how will he even know if they are considering it? This is the equivalent of a principle declaring that students can't discuss their tests in the cafeteria; a rule utterly unenforceable if the individuals involved refuse to enforce it themselves.
Posted by: Julian | November 4, 2009 9:38 AM
Whatever one thinks about the rights and wrongs of drug use and prohibition, one surely has to accept that drugs and their supply are a major factor in a lot of criminal activity throughout most of the world. If you're going to review the criminal justice system it's patently ridiculous not to include drug issues.
The fact that someone would try to prevent this looks like a tacit admission that the current policy isn't any good.
Posted by: SimonG | November 4, 2009 9:49 AM
"one surely has to accept that the demonization and prohibition of non-tobacco, non-prescription drugs and their supply are a major factor in a lot of criminal activity throughout most of the world"
there, fixed it for you...
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | November 4, 2009 9:59 AM
Why should we be remotely surprised? This is only a week or so after over here the British Government fired their top scientist drug adviser for having the temerity to suggest publicly the alcohol is more damaging than Mary Jane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt#Sacking
Posted by: David Durant | November 4, 2009 10:05 AM
Ed: Did you watch the ESPN documentary about Len Bias last night? They drew the conclusion that Len Bias's death led directly to stricter drug laws on the national level. They interviewed the former Counsel for the Senate (I think) and he came right out and said that they listened to the wrong people and made the numbers for prosecution far too easy.
Posted by: FishyFred | November 4, 2009 10:29 AM
Charles Grassley is doing his best to wrest the title of Iowa's Greatest Dunce from Steve King. I think this move might just put Grassely in the running.
Posted by: Owen | November 4, 2009 10:47 AM
Try not to think of Grassley as a "person" with "thoughts" of his own; he is merely a tool or a sock-puppet. Find the one using the tool and learn his motives and methods, and you will edge a little closer to the real story.
Cui Bono? (Who benefits?)
Which of Grassley's contributors/bosses wants this amendment passed, and why? We need to peek behind the curtain and determine where this amendment is truly coming from.
Posted by: threetorches | November 4, 2009 11:25 AM
What amazes me is that it's Sen Webb's bill. You really can't call him soft on crime and he's from Virginia, which commuting distance for DC aside is not exactly a liberal place.
I thought Sen Webb might be the person to get this done.
Posted by: katydid13 | November 4, 2009 1:18 PM
Re katydid13
Senator Webb is a pretty independent guy. It should be noted that he started out as a Democrat, switched to the Rethuglican Party and was subsequently appointed Reagans' Secretary of the Navy. More recently, he reverted to his roots in the Democratic Party because of his total disdain for Dubya and his war in Iraq, and the theocrats who have hijacked the Rethuglican Party.
Posted by: SLC | November 4, 2009 2:01 PM
SLC that's exactly what I mean. Webb is pretty moderate. He was SecNav under the Chosen One, which makes it hard to call him wuss. His constituents would probably support reasonable reform.
Yet, it's still not enough for the right.
Posted by: katydid13 | November 4, 2009 2:08 PM
Stuff like this is why we liberals like to call ourselves "reality-based" (though, to be fair, I'm sure we don't always live up to that). Grassley basically wants to stick his fingers in his ears and say "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" rather than face some extremely well-known facts about the counterproductiveness of the war on drugs.
Posted by: Tom | November 4, 2009 5:36 PM
When will the great people of this country demand an end to the useless war on drugs that consumes billions of taxpayers dollars while good hard working people are now jobless broke homeless and living out of motels or their cars? There is no way to change the rediculous outdated laws in this country without addressing the rediculous wastefull war of drugs no way .
Posted by: Chris | November 4, 2009 6:44 PM
You know there's going to be serious resistance to this when right-wing pundits attack NIH for funding research on therapeutic THC for marijuana addicts. I mean, you think getting "potheads" off pot would be something they *might* be okay with . . . but not even that! Sigh.
Posted by: bioephemera | November 4, 2009 10:04 PM
Another goof coming out of the wood work...we need to end this War on Americans...Geee can't even talk about it, did this guy take lesson's from Stalin or Hitler, after all he knows whats best maybe he can hire more Gestapo agents to enforce the new law, to hell with the 1st Admenment this creep needs to be voted out quick and maybe the feds need to look into his money affairs and the news people need to see if he has a whore or little boy on the side as most creeps in Washington do.
Time to make this legal and tax it this war is been since 1930 and no winning in sight, perhaps he's on the mexican cartel payroll to keep it illegal? after all the tax dollars need to stay here for schools, roads, and state bugets, rather then sending that money to the crimmals in mexico as our taxes go out of sight and we suffer....this guy won the moron of the year award, what a jagoff!
Posted by: Judge Roy Bean | November 5, 2009 9:14 AM
You'd think a guy named GRASSley.... huh huh.
Posted by: Bull | November 5, 2009 8:41 PM
drugs kill!! mostly the ones pushed by big pharma. I hope grassly ODs soon.
Posted by: dref homan | November 6, 2009 6:35 PM