By John
Nichols
 |
|
Florida Rep. Trey Radel gives
a news conference regarding his cocaine possession charges. (Reuters/Steve
Nesius)
|
Florida
Congressman Trey Radel, who has wisely determined that he does not want to
become an American version of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, says he will take a leave
of absence from the US House of Representatives to address his penchant for
cocaine.
“I’m struggling
with this disease, but I know that I can overcome it,” explains the conservative Republican.
Fair enough.
The congressman wants to finally deal with an addiction problem he says he’s
struggled with “on and off for years.” And there is every reason to wish him
well as he does so.
But it would be
good for Radel and his colleagues to note that he has identified his challenge
as a disease, not a bad habit.
That’s a very
different line than was taken by the House Republicans Caucus (of which Radel
has been an enthusiastic member) when the chamber this year gave voice-vote approval to
an amendment that allows states to require drug-testing of food stamp
recipients. Why would they seek to penalize victims of what the congressman
says is a disease? Why would they go after the neediest Americans in what
Congressman Jim McGovern—the House’s most ardent advocate for nutrition
programs—with a “degrading and mean-spirited”
approach?
Why, in
general, is there a rush to penalize Americans who are in need far more
aggressively than Radel, a former television reporter who was elected to
Congress last year with the backing of Tea Party groups that have made it a priority to
promote crackdowns on recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits.
Radel’s penalty for an
admitted purchase of cocaine from an undercover agent will be a year of
supervised probation.
He will not
lose his job, or the benefits that will allow him to overcome his disease. He
even suggests that he wants to “continue to serve.”
Radel seems to
be safe from the worst ravages of the drug war. He's getting a chance to
"overcome" his problems.
But Americans
who are not members of Congress continue to be harmed. Shouldn't they get the
same chance that Radel has gotten?
§ The number of
people behind bars for drug law violations rose from 50,000 in 1980 to more
than a half of a million today—an 1100-percent increase.
§ Drug arrests
have more than tripled in the last 25 years, totaling more than 1.63 million
arrests in 2010. More than four out of five of these arrests were for mere
possession, and forty-six percent of these arrests (750,591) were for marijuana
possession alone.
§ Arrests and
incarceration for drugs—even for first time, low-level violations—can result in
debilitating collateral consequences for an individual and their family. A conviction for a drug law violation can result in
the loss of employment, property, public housing, food stamp eligibility,
financial aid for college, and the right to vote—even after serving time behind
bars.
And Radel’s
House Republican Caucus just led the fight to make it even harder on
people suffering from what the congressman identifies as a disease—or for
people who simply engage in recreational marijuana use—to get by.
There are lots
of calls for Radel to step down.
But wouldn’t it
be better for him to get his treatment and come around to the realization that
penalizing and punishing people who use drugs is a bad policy? Wouldn’t it be
better if he recognized, as a participant in future policy debates, that this
bad policy is too frequently applied in a “new Jim Crow” manner that
sees people of color and low-income Americans face far harsher penalties than
wealthy and politically connected white folks?
Radel could be
a leader in backing legislative proposals would change not just policies but
the broader debate about how to end a failed “drug war.” So, too, could more
members of a House Republican Caucus that still errs too frequently on the side
of punishment of those in need rather than common sense.
Some
Republicans have already come around. There’s bipartisan support for some of
the soundest legislative proposals. But the support has not been sufficient to
get the House moving on what the Drug Policy Alliance
identifies as essential reforms, such as:
§ The Safety Valve Act,
introduced in the U.S. Senate by Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, and Rand Paul,
R-Kentucky, and in the U.S. House by Representatives Robert “Bobby” Scott,
D-Virginia, and Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky. The bills would allow federal judges
to sentence nonviolent offenders below the federal mandatory minimum sentence
if a lower sentence is warranted. (Notably, Radel is a co-sponsor of this
measure. Unfortunately, he’s one of just 18 House members—15 Democrats, 3 Republicans—who are now on
board.)
§ The Smarter Sentencing Act,
introduced in the US Senate by Senators Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, and Mike Lee,
R-Utah, and in the House by Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, and Bobby Scott, which
would lower mandatory minimums for certain drug law violations, make the recent
reduction in the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity retroactive, and
give judges more discretion to sentence certain offenders below the mandatory
minimum sentence if warranted. (Ten members—7 Democrats and three Republicans, but no
Radel—are backing this measure.)
§ The Public Safety Enhancement Act, introduced in
the US House by Congressman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and Bobby Scott, which
would allow certain federal prisoners to be transferred from prison to
community supervision earlier if they take rehabilitation classes, saving
taxpayer money while improving public safety.(Seventeen House members—12 Democrats and 5 Republicans, but no Radel—are
backing this measure.)
These pieces of
legislation represent vital steps in the right direction. Ultimately, however,
the first step is to recognize that Richard Nixon’s “war on drugs” has failed
and that it is absurd to continue to respond to that failure with an
unreasonable and unequal regimen of penalty and punishment.
Source: http://www.thenation.com
No comments:
Post a Comment