S1: o- of the groups who're presenting are you guys gonna be, focussing specifically on the crack cocaine thing or generally on, um, sort of sentencing? 
S7: a little bit of both mostly [SU-8: a little bit, thinking a little bit of the, (of sentencing) ] sentencing but a little bit on, other stuff. 
S1: okay, okay, okay, that's fine. 
S2: are we trying to move all together? [SU-F: we're trying to move (xx) ] cuz you guys are over there, i'm over here. 
S4: yeah so wh- where do you guys wanna sit? like right, just right here? do we wanna sit over here? 
SU-5: are we gonna sit in a big line across the room or at the table? 
S1: just like three and three 
S4: okay. 
S2: over here? you like it when we're like we're on_ don't you like it when we're on this side, both on the same sides? 
S1: both on the same side that's fine if you wanna do that, okay, that's fine. 
S4: i don't wanna sit that close to them (xx) 
<SU-F LAUGH> 
SU-5: okay. so you guys sit over there and we'll sit over here. 
SU-7: okay. 
S1: they're trying to get away from the, [SU-F: oh uh i forgot about that ] from the (little mumble) over there. <LAUGH> 
S4: yeah i'm gonna try and disguise my voice 
S1: now if i would've thought ahead i would've had you guys abandon the Sentencing Commission and uh, dissenting and, majority opinions, but that's another story that we'll get into in a minute 
S1: okay i don't know if we're gonna need any more (beside some) emails about illness so, 
S1: okay, uh let's get moving, um, we are going to talk today about uh, uh, sentencing policy and the war on drugs and whether or not it made sense, and we have we have, both sides of the story here. uh do the teams have clever names this time? <SS LAUGH> 
S2: <LAUGH> we do 
SU-M: definitely
S2: i ju- i just forgot what <LAUGH> our acronym was.
S1: uhuh 
S2: what is 
S8: alright, well the the words are, [S1: uhuh ] w- wise and equitable, effort towards drugs?
S1: <WRITING> wise </WRITING> 
S2: yeah, but that's a, and's little, there you go.
S1: <WRITING ON BOARD THROUGHOUT NEXT :26 OF UTTERANCE> equitable efforts towards drugs and and motherhood let's say. <SS LAUGH> efforts 
S2: and apple pie.
S1: efforts, towards 
S2: and towards is little too.
S7: yeah, the towards is is a small T. <SS LAUGH>
S8: yeah, the towards is not part of it. 
SU-M: yeah, isn't that WEED? <LAUGH> 
S2: it was our best one. [S1: drugs ] <SS LAUGH> we had many.
S1: so that's, [SU-F: WEED ] WEED i see.
SS: yes. 
S2: aren't we clever?
S1: and uh, okay. and and no no clever name on the (xx) uh. <SS LAUGH>
S4: our our subject is much too serious. <SS LAUGH> just sort of 
SU-F: (xx)
SU-F: can somebody open the window?
S1: um, and uh, i i forget, so you guys were, uh sort of pro pro, oh no you were you were con before. [S2: right. ] and they they (xx) so get started. 
S1: okay, um no pointing to the cameras um. uh. why don't we get started? why don't, i- if_ unless there's a preference about who starts i think it's probably best to start with the, um, sort of pro, drug war side. um, sort of, you guys can have something to respond to it's, put out a positive, uh, approach then attack it. you know, that's the way we go <LAUGH> 
SU-F: (xx) one is JAIL right? 
S1: judicious <WRITING ON BOARD> do you mind being named?
S5: no.
SU-M: did you get this?
S1: <WRITING ON BOARD> (xx) 
S2: as opposed to the legal (lawbreakers...) <SS LAUGH> cuz that's all of y'all. 
S1: nobody remembers that once we, you justify the acronym. um, okay so i uh without further ado we'll start with, uh the recently named JAIL group, um, <SS LAUGH> and have_ hear hear their thoughts on why the drug war was a good idea and and especially why we should, sentence crack offenders more harshly than cocaine offenders. take it away.
S5: okay. i'm gonna start um, i'm gonna start just by giving a little overview of, the justification for the drug war explain why it's necessary, then Jorge will be talking about, how, crack in particular causes crime, or contributes to crime, and then Justin will go into a little more about the sentencing, um, of crack versus cocaine. so, as we all, know just from watching the news drugs are a very serious problem in the United States. over a million people are arrested each year for selling or possession of drugs. given the magnitude of this problem, obviously something really needs to be done. if it's not the war on drugs then what is it gonna be? there're several alternatives that've been offered there's legalization or semi-legalization, but, personally we don't think that this is really an option, it will increase the access to drugs it will increase the addiction of drugs, it will increase criminal behavior, and, the cycle of poverty will be perpetuated in inner cities. we could reduce, try to reduce the supply. but as we saw in the Reagan administration this won't work either. we can try to reduce the demand, but through pro- educational programs, uh such as DARE, but, as we see without that program it doesn't work and actually encourages rather than, discourages drug use. instead we need to make crime not pay, penalties must be swift certain and severe in order to be effective. as one of the articles that we read this week says <READING> the problem with the get tough approach is that it is not tough enough. </READING> a couple examples of this, drug offenders only serve on average one-third of their sentence. a hundred and forty-three out of every thousand serious offenders are punished. it's a very small number. um, the likelihood of those caught receiving a punishment, is only fifty percent, and drug dealers only have a four percent chance of being punished per drug transaction. as all this evidence shows the current war on drugs is neither swift certain or severe. do the crime do the time needs to become our motto. everyone who snorts smokes inhales or ingests an illegal substance should be punished for it. because there has been some evidence that drug policies affect only people of color is, somewhat irrelevant. we should punish everybody who does, an illegal substance regardless of the color of their skin. um, it just so happens we haven't yet devised a plan to target necessarily middle-class, n- drug users but that doesn't mean that they are any less culpable, for their crimes. uh drug abuse, as we can see from looking at any popular media report is increasingly concentrated in inner city areas. most crimes are committed by poor minority citizens and they are committed against poor minority citizens. my question is as policy formulators how can we sit back and ignore this entire population of people? if we don't focus on this population and target their drug use i- in an attempt to reduce crime then we are perpetuating the cycle of poverty, by ignoring this entire group of citizens. so now we need to figure out how we are going to more effectively fight this war on drugs. uh, deterrence and prevention through incapacitation is the key. since nineteen seventy-three incarceration rates are at the highest level ever. however, crime rates are in a, at an all-time low, something is obviously working right. we are, safe now, more safe than we have ever been before because there, are less crimes being committed. mandatory minimums are an effective and efficient way to address the severe societal impact of all types of drugs, they are swift they are certain and they are severe. we need more police officers stricter enforcement (in) of the laws and quicker and stricter punishments. we need to increase, finally we need to increase spending on the drug war. currently only about one cent out of every federal dollar is spent, on the war um, and as is evident we cannot effectively fight, this way unless we are given the resources to do so. finally the United States is a constitutionally guaran- has a constitutionally guaranteed interest in protecting life liberty and property of all Americans. we are failing at this task unless we step up the war on drugs to protect all of our citizens not just the economically privileged. 
<P :04> 
S6: okay, my intervention is about a, connection between drugs and crime. and drug and especially crack cocaine is associate with, system- systemic crime. research allowed the enforcement official report that much of the violence, associated with crack cocaine, stem from attempts by competing factions to consolidate control of drug distribution in urban, areas. for example, uh twenty-seven-point-nine percent of the crack offender possess (xx) weapons compared to fifteen-point-one of powder cocaine offender, and are more likely to have more extensive criminal rec- record. uh, twenty, twenty-point-four of crack defen- defend- defendants, have the high- highest criminal, history. United States Intensive Commission, shows that crack cocaine defendant also are more likely to have a recent criminal reco- record. thirty-three percent, are under a preexisting criminal justice sentence at the time of they most recent federal offense. the Commission f- found that forty-eight percent of men and sixty-two percent of women who use crack, engage in petty property crime and a significant minority of the main committed fairly high, high number of violent, or potentially violent offense. this (history) also report that sixty-nine percent of women crack user engage in prostitution. the prevalence of cocaine supports babies children, neglected or abandoned by mother addict to drugs, an increase an illegitimate births or an increase in gratuitous violence. heroin, cocaine, crack and methamphetamines are highly toxic substance, and (xx) of to then engage in all kinds of destructive behavior, from preying on family member to assaulting a stranger to abusing children.
S4: okay, um, i'm gonna to get into a little bit more now about the, sentencing disparity between powder cocaine and crack cocaine. we think it's, pretty self-evident that drugs are a real problem, um, that they are very destructive, that they create lots of destructive behavior. uh but what, i think is maybe not so, evident to people who criticize these sentencing laws is the fact that, crack cocaine simply results in greater harms to society. it's more dangerous, it's more destructive, um, it's basically the worst drug that is out there on the streets today. now because of that we feel that like the sentencing disparities currently in effect under federal guidelines, are legitimate. they shouldn't be lessened and in fact you could even make a case that they're not stringent enough. um, so lemme talk about why crack is, is worse. first off, uh, pharmacologically, um, it's worse, than powder cocaine, you can_ you know some people try and claim they're the same drug, that's simply not true, it's true that they have the same active chemical ingredients, you know crack is produced from powdered cocaine but to say the two are the same is like saying that hemp is the same as marijuana. they're, sure they're the same plant but there's a vast difference in potency. the same is true of crack and powder cocaine and this of course comes from the method of administration, um by smoking the crack the effect is much more intense, it's also much more short lived. um because crack or, and powder cocaine are not pharmacologically or physically addictive but psychologically addictive, the shorter more intense high leads to a quicker and greater craving which leads to more addiction, so this obviously makes it a more dangerous more destructive drug. in addition, this shorter more intense high leads to binging. um this can lead all kinds of problems. it leads to more crime, as Jorge talked about um to fuel these cravings, it also leads to more destructive um behavior like sexually risky behavior sex for drugs, um that sort of thing. so, i think that, to say that they're the same drug is naive and not at all true. now another, set of factors that makes crack more dangerous can kinda be grouped under the heading of, the characteristics of the crack market. um, Jorge's already talked a little bit about, uh the, violence that's, you know highly correlated with the, crack markets across the country. but there's also other uh things that fall under this heading. there's the marketability of crack, uh it's able to be sold in small, uh packages for only five to ten dollars. um this means that it's basically accessible to everyone, particularly children, particularly, the people who are economically disadvantaged, um and you know that's actually born out by, uh the statistics that the Sentencing Commission uh looks at. you know of those who've used cocaine in the last year, uh the more twelve- to seventeen-year-olds used crack, twenty-six percent than any other age group. so it's not just a, a theory that it's more accessible to children there's more children using crack. uh, which you know obviously disturbs us due to its high potential for addiction. um also there's a high rate of involvement of juveniles and women in the crack trade. um because of way the trade is organized a lotta street corner selling it's very, sort of uh disorganized, lends itself well to the type of, employees, if you will and also they're viewed as less susceptible to prosecution. so we feel like getting people involved in crime would maybe, you know we would like to see involved in positive, um things in life as opposed to crack and the crack trade. um, also as, as we've talked a little bit about the more likelihood of high risk behavior, the binging factor again also means that if a pregnant woman is smoking crack as opposed to snorting it, there's the likelihood that she'll expose her baby to higher levels of the substance, so that also comes into play. um, i guess finally, you know, to talk about, um, the issue of well, you know a a a a certain amount of powder cocaine can be turned into a much greater amount of crack cocaine, we sort of think that, regardless of what powder cocaine may or may not be turned into at some indeterminate point in the future, the fact is that once somebody takes that step and converts it to crack they're then selling a more dangerous drug and they need to be punished, uh, you know they need to have a harsher punishment levied on them. i mean we wanna to see the day when no crack is sold at all. we wanna see the day when no drugs of any kind, illegal drugs that is are sold on the streets. uh but as crack is the worst we want to see that go down first. so we think that, you know the pu- the penalties are already very stiff and yet you still have people producing crack, selling it on the streets, we want to see the penalties so stiff, that dealers don't want to touch crack. you know if you want crack you'll have to convert the powder into crack in your own kitchen, um, you know that right there would eliminate a certain segment of the market, children who don't have access to that, you know, or don't have the ability or the access to a kitchen to turn it into crack, some economically disadvantaged i mean, you know, i- i- we we think that perhaps, frankly that the penalties and or the disparity isn't high enough.
<P :05> 
S8: okay 
S1: great, that was, great. and i know they all firmly believe all that stuff. 
S8: okay. um, i'm gonna start us off. i'm gonna basically provide, kinda introduction, uh, to our arguments, um, then i'll turn it over to the two of them. i'd i'd like to start out with some statistics, actually just to get us thinking about some of the issues involved, in the war on drugs. um, first, in nineteen ninety-six, ninety-three percent of all federal drug war spending went to law enforcement efforts, while only seven percent went to treatment, and other strategies. um, in the early nineteen seventies in New York the Rockefeller Drug Laws mandated harsh prison terms and forbade, plea bargaining. a massive multi-year evaluation concluded, implementation of the laws had no effect on drug trafficking drug use or drug related health problems. in nineteen eighty, twenty-five percent of federal prisons were drug of- excuse me, nineteen eighty twenty-five percent of federal prisoners were drug offenders, by nineteen ninety-two this number had increased to fifty-eight percent. typical estimates of the average annual cost of holding one prisoner ranged from twenty thousand to thirty thousand dollars, highe- higher on average than the annual tuition at Harvard University. under nineteen eighty-eight federal law possession of more than five grams of crack cocaine triggers a minimum sentence of five years in prison. simple possession of any quantity of, powdered quar- cocaine or any other drug is punishable by a maximum, of one year in prison. after ninety, after nineteen eighty nonwhite drug arrest rates rose steadily and then skyrocketed. by nineteen eighty-eight they were five times higher than, white rates. and then finally average time served in federal prison for drugs is seventy-eight months for rape, sixty-seven months. okay so those statistics were basically like i said just to get us thinking, about some of the issues. um, there are two themes to the arguments that we're gonna present. uh the first, theme concerns um, uh the two different ways you can categorize, um approaches to to drugs. um the first way is supply side, uh the supply-side approach and second si- second is the demand-side approach. um, suppl- supply-side efforts include law enforcement, um, general law enforcement in cities local communities uh interdiction along borders, like the border between the United States and and Mexico and, uh financial support to other countries that um, from where a lot of drugs that reach the United States originate. um, demand-side efforts uh target the demand for drugs. um, mass media education programs, drug education programs in schools such as the DARE program, uh, drug abuse treatment programs. and finally law enforcement efforts aimed, at possession of drugs. um, so basically you know, there are two main, uh categories of efforts um supply side and demand side. um, our argument is simply that there should be a balance, we're not saying that there shouldn't be laws against drugs, we're not saying that, that shouldn't be a a a one of the, one of the central foci, i guess, of of uh, drug enf- drug strategy. but we're saying that there should be a balance between the two. right now, as a statistic on the federal spending indicates, there's a huge imbalance ninety-three, percent versus seven percent. um, research has shown that both types of strategies can be effective, supply and, supply-side and demand-side strategies. um, so we are simply advocating for for a balance of the two. um, furthermore if- uh, an imbalance towards the supply side um, is very expensive and, a lot of research shows that the difference between a balanced approach, a balance between supply and demand and an, approach that's completely supply there's no, there's basically very little added benefit, to that. so, and the second argument basically, um is about uh the equity issues, or the second theme i should say in our argument it is, is equity. um basically one of this, one of the main, strategies of law enforcement um, is actually, a a demand, strategy. um, uh sending a message, by these laws, um, like mandatory sentences, and uh those sorts of laws. sending a message that, drugs are wrong and that if you do drugs, um, that you'll pay for it. that that's also a demand strategy. um we think though that making that a demand strategy has resulted in a lot of, inequity, um between, um blacks Hispanics and, sentences that they receive, um and and the law enforcement presence in their communities versus whites. um, um, and we think that given given statistics show that um most felony defendants are poor, badly educated un- or underemployed, not part of a stable household, and black. um the efforts of the government which is made up of largely, white middle and upper class, people the effort of the government to, uh make law enforcement a demand strategy basically results, in lots of, poor people ending up in jail, um when their efforts are really directed um at middle-class, and upper-class white kids. so, that's the second theme, and so i'll turn it over to Ally now. 
S7: okay, um the first question that i would like to ask is whether, the successes of the drug war are balanced with, and i would say that they are fairly limited successes, whether they're balanced with um the costs which i would say are fairly high, both um in terms of economics and in terms, of the effects on communities and on individuals, um as well as, sort of the detriment that they have to, some of the ideals that we hold like equity, as being, pretty fundamental part of the rights that we enjoy as citizens. um, first of all, i would say that the supply side approach hasn't accomplished, very much of what it hopes to, although granted, as the other side said um there are, tremendous increases in prison population, um which has led to some decrease in crime, but, the next logical step to that argument i think is fairly obvious that, of course if everyone was in prison then, the whole community would be safer in fact, traditionally, the upper classes tend to be very happy in police states. um you don't have a lot of people, who are really unhappy under um, say for example Franco in Spain. during his reign a lot of the upper and middle classes really enjoyed, that the power of the police, um and that presence in the community. so just something to balance out sort of what, their argument is over on that side. but, as in terms of it actually being a success, um if the war on drugs was indeed a success then, the risk of dealing would be so high that the availability of, the availability of drugs would be much lower thus increasing costs. however the, the increase, the costs of drugs has not significantly increased to um, dissuade people from using them and, massive arrests if they were indeed able to reduce this um supply, we should have have our streets cleared by now we have tons of people in prisons. however as has been shown, um these massive sweeps on drug sellers has really just_ they're replaced almost immediately upon, being arrested and placed in prison. that particular approach is, clearly unsuccessful. um, the other costs, Jim already touched upon some of them um, including, the harsher penalties and how they've led to an increase in, not not just in terms of enforcement but also in the cost for, court costs prosecution and the increase in the prison costs which would include, not just the twenty to thirty thousand per year per prisoner, but also the cost of new prisons which range between fifty thousand to two hundred thousand dollars per prison. um, when you multiply that out by states and federal tha- that, turns out to be quite a lot of money. um, but on top of, sort of the costs of, of balancing the cost versus the effectiveness of this particular strategy we also have to look at the question of equity um, in terms of, sort of sen- strategy that's really made our prison popu- population disproportionately minority. um, in terms of where blacks fit in, cocaine use they are fifteen percent, fifteen percent of the black population is involved in, use of cocaine whereas they represent ninety percent of those who are imprisoned for um cocaine drug offenses. um that's obviously, a huge disproportion in that particular, arena. i'd just like to throw out a little quote here i'm gonna try to wrap up i'm, not trying to be over long here. but, going into the war on drugs, there was a certain amount of awareness that this was going to targe- target this particular populations, disproportionately, as um senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, <READING> it is essential that we in making these choices understand that by choosing, to focus on the supply of drugs and on these types of policies we are choosing, to have an intense crime problem, concentrated among minorities. </READING> i think that that is something which is r- really does raise i think a very valid moral question and something that we need to consider. um, and i'll turn it over to Missy. 
S2: okay, i'm going to talk about the uh, sort of what Jim talked about the intro the two pronged approach, that we think should be taken to reforming the war on drugs. two prongs are fifty-fifty, even treatment in supply controls and second reform of sentencing laws, like our crack cocaine, disparity law, well, the disparity, in those laws. uh, first, is fifty-fifty, even treatment. like Jim said our current spending, is of seven percent on demand-side strategies and nine-three percent, on supply-side strategies and these failures are costly. for every dollar we spend, on supply-side strategies we lose money. we lose somewhere between, somewhere between two dollars and an additional dollar. and i guess that the three of us think that, this loss of money could be acceptable if results, were being produced, but they're not. as Ally and Jim talked about we have, exploding prison populations which are, costly in and of themselves, huge racial disparities we haven't seen a massive decline in the amount of drugs used. and so, we think there should be a more more even, distribution between s- treatment, and enforcement. and treatment includes things like education rehabilitation and harm reduction strategies. and um, doing harm reduction strategies education rehabilitation, studies have found uh that, for every dollar you invest you save about seven, seven dollars and forty-six cents, which is fifteen times more cost effective than a law enforcement strategy. um, we understand that there are are some, problems with treatment. you can, people can take some, swipes some whacks at whether or not treatment works, um but i think we think that there's three things that are important to keep in mind, when you look at whether or not treatment is effective currently. first keep in mind that it is competing with a resource deficiency of seven to ninety-three percent. second, keep in mind that it's judged only by abstinence programs and that honest drug education or some reform to drug education might be a good idea. and third, keep in mind that it's still more effective than locking people up for drugs strategies which gives them no chance for treatment, and is more expensive and more inequitable. second thing that we want to talk about is, reform of sentencing laws. uh, like Jim touched on in the early seventies, we did have mandatory minimums which we repealed, because we found that they, were not solving for rehabilitation were increasing social alienation were not solving for drug use, and, thus we got, thus we got rid of them. and so, we propose that maybe we should change the mandatory minimum laws that we have, for disparity between crack and cocaine. uh, i think that you're pretty clear on what those laws are. there's a gap which is one hundred-to-one, of possession. you're, the sentence is a hundred times, or a hundred times more harsh for crack. um, the per- the change that we would propose would look at the severity of the crime, and not just put people in jail for a mandatory minimum. i think a lot of the things that Justin discussed are things which are reasonable if there's more crime, being associated with the trade if someone gets killed during the trade uh, of a of a drug if someone uses a gun. those are things that should be taken into account in terms of severity, but all those things while reasonable, don't justify a mandatory minimum of one hundred-to-one different disparity where you don't look at any aspects of anything that happened during the crime, you just immediately put someone in jail, or actually in prison for, for five years. and uh, so, so i think that, i'm gonna kinda read, i know that's not always thrilling when somebody reads at you but, some of the things that would be taken into consideration if you got rid of mandatory minimums you'd use these sort of guidelines. um, you could take into consideration <READING> the form of cocaine involved, whether or not a firearm or dangerous weapon was involved whether or not the s- the offense resulted in serious bodily injury or death to another person, the extent to which powder cocaine defendant knew the drug would be converted into crack, </READING> etcetera etcetera. these are all just, things that you look at the severi- there's thirteen of them, that you look at about the severity of the crime which we think makes a lot more sense than just locking people up, um immediately. and the reason why we think why think is because, and Justin did quote a little bit from the Sentencing Commission um, Study well i just wanna finish their thought, that there aren't a lot of studies which prove the difference between pharmacology between, uh deaths, and the amount of crime that's committed how much crime people commit when they uh use drug violence how many youths tha- youths are involved. there just aren't many many, many uh studies that prove this and the, ultimate conclusion of the Sentencing Commission report that Justin quoted from is not that we should increase our mandatory minimums, or that we should even retain our mandatory minimums, but that we should look at the severity of the crime and look at other factors involved when you determine sentencing. and that's it.
S1: okay great. WEED and JAIL have their positions on the table. and uh, now why don't we start with some rebuttals before we go to questions from the, from the audience here. you guys wanna take it away?
SU-M: whatever 
S5: um... okay. well first of all, you guys talk about the, prison populations and overflowing etcetera etcetera changes in drug arrests and imprisonment policies since nineteen seventy-four only account for eight percent, of the increase in the prison population. this is not a- an enormous increase, compared to how much, the prison population has grown, drugs are not necessarily the cause for the bulk of it. changing the sentencing to e- encompass all of the thirteen points that you mentioned Missy, would, take too long. it's already, already as i mentioned before only, four percent of, every tr- of drug dealers are punished, uh, and if we want to, for all of their deals we want to take them to trial and take into account all of the different variables that you mentioned, it will take too long. punishments will not be swift they will not be certain and they will not be severe. because, since the drug war has started the crack market has, is no longer expanding, is evidence that the war works, and because there is no market expansion competition among dealers has increased, which has led to increased violence. this increased violence is not associated with powder cocaine and, if we, don't punish, them more severely and more strictly it will, the violence will continue to increase, um... don't know. 
S4: w- um, i i can keep going there if you if you want, um, i guess to talk about again about punishments um, versus treatment. you guys talk about a fifty-fifty split um, that you wanna see. uh, i mean <LAUGH> when you wanna talk about, uh uncertain successes i think treatment is basici- basically your poster child. i mean, never have we <LAUGH> you know, had a treatment program that's really been shown to work effectively meanwhile you talk about uncertain successes, on the law and order side, well you know i mean crime rates in Michigan are at a basically i think a twenty or thirty year low, uh, the crime rates across the country are are you know at levels people haven't seen for years. uh i think that that's, uh, an indicator of success that's, you know that has never been matched by treatment programs. so i don't understand why you're claiming, that we should move progra- or move money to programs that offer us you know, that we don't know what they offer us, we don't know if they're going to be effective or not from from programs that have been proven to work. um, when you talk about looking at the severity of crime, these are the thirteen, the thirteen points Holly was talking about. when you do that that's fine for that individual crime. but we wanna squash the market. we feel like, you know sure individually, um, you know you can look at what this person you know whether he or she used a weapon etcetera that's fine for the individual crime but, we wanna make the, costs of dealing in crack in general so high that nobody, not the violent felons that are certainly out there, not the non violent offenders that nobody's gonna wanna deal in crack cocaine. um, and so we think that, the mandatory minimum's the best way to do this. in addition, none of those uh, factors you know looks at the increased addictiveness of crack cocaine. none of them deals with the increased attraction due to cheap marketability of crack cocaine. so, you know i think that that's, that's an incomplete solution, and i don't think it's, the cure all that you're, you're claiming it is. um, then you talk about as as evidence that, the increased sentencing in the war on drugs hasn't succeeded the fact that costs haven't increased uh you know, and that a, you know dissuading the populous from using drugs hasn't happened, you know, i i think that the best indicator of success in the crime rates and as far as the cost not having increased you know, i i agree, i think the penalty should be more severe. i think that uh we should make the cost so, unbelievably high that nobody will want to deal crack cocaine. so, you know i don't think that that's necessarily an indicator of failure though. um, a- and one last thing. you guys talk a lot about the costs, of uh, of these programs, and uh i don't think that we can put a price on some of these issues. again, we're we're looking at people, twenty-six percent of uh, you know of people who had used crack cocaine last year twenty-six percent were between twelve and seventeen years old. can you put a price on the health and safety of well-being of our children? <SS LAUGH> i don't think you can, and i'm not willing to do that, i'm not willing to do that. finally about about racial disparities. um, you know we wanna, we wanna prosecute everybody who deals in crack cocaine. um i don't care what color they are, um those who are dealing in crack cocaine should be punished. and if you look at some of the other mandatory minimums on the books i think it is clear that they're not, racially motivated. uh, the methamphetamine laws for example. they have the second highest mean and median punishment, uh second to crack cocaine and those laws affect eighty-four percent of whites, okay? so, the laws are on the books that have the same effect and in fact in many popular media, they say that me- the methamphetamines will be the next crack cocaine the next big drug, and if that happens, that it will be mainly white, you know white white folks going to jail. that's, you know that's not, not neither here nor there. that's just, if if they're dealing with dangerous drugs they deserve to be put away, you know wha- no matter what color they are. one last point is that um all federal circuit courts have upheld these sentencing schemes, and they have declared them constitutional. so i think that's important to look at when you when you talk about issues of equity. um, i mean equity also, goes to, protection under the law. um, and, you know i think that we need to you know prosecute people who are committing crimes in low income neighborhoods, as well. i don't know, do you have anything else? 
<P :05> 
S1: okay great. one last, word, and we'll open it up.
SU-7: (go) 
S2: um i'll start. um, i'll talk a little bit about the different things people have said about sentencing or reforming sentencing guidelines and a little bit about, about treatment, and then, if any of you have anything to say just jump in whenever i'm done. um, the first concern i think about reforming sentencing laws is that sent- the, reforming them would take too long. it would have_ there's, you know there's a lot of factors that you have to consider but, uh i i do think we can be judicious we can have a little length, in order that we preserve racial equity in this country. i feel that, you know fifteen more minutes is probably worth it, to say, to have s- things that are much more racially fair, particularly when our original laws aren't based o- our original laws are based more on conjecture when we don't really have studies which prove, a lot of the reasons why we have the one hundred-to-one, it's based mostly on conjecture. um i understand there's a concern that sentencing, if you reform sentencing it won't be swift and severe. but uh, the way_ reforming and sentencing or changing to a mandatory minimum, really doesn't, doesn't massively increase whether it's swift and severe. it only shifts discretion from judges to prosecutors. it's just a shift, of that discretion while the prosecutor determines whether or not you'll, implement or how you'll, what you'll do with the law or the sentence and so i'm not sure that, the mandatory minimum, gets all, gets all these great benefits of being swift and severe and l- and, like we said before there's not much of e- evidence of de- of declining of a massive drop in drug use. there might be a, decrease in crime rate but that's not the same thing as the decrease in drug use which is what the war on drugs is supposed to produce. and we haven't seen, that, decline which i think also, takes away one of the main reasons why you want to immediately lock, um everybody up for, drug use. um, does anybody have anything they want to say about that? 
S7: um i was just, going to, jump on what you said before about the prosecution. um they do have a big hand in punishment and that, has been often pointed to as part of the reason for racial disparity because they do have, a certain amount of, um, authority to determine whether or not someone's charged on the state or federal level, um whether they get charged with, dealing or versus possession obviously dealing, being a more, stringently punished, crime. u- to go to um some of the points that, were made on this side as well uh i agree with you that we should punish, equally. tha- that was a point that, both Justin and, Holly? made earlier. but, the point is that currently we aren't punishing equally. currently, fifteen percent of cocaine users are African-American but, as i said before ni- they are ninety-percent of those who are convicted on crack cocaine charges, and forty percent of those who are, con- convicted for powder cocaine charges. um i think, as it's been pointed out previously, it is more difficult, to um sort of, round up those white suburban kids because they have a lot of, they don't have to deal on the corner they can deal in their houses. but, until we are, targeting them just as much as we're targeting these poorer communities there will continue to be a disparity. that point that also hasn't been raised which i think, definitely um goes into this is the whole idea of, um, in terms of, cops and who they pull over there's definitely been a huge debate in the past, in really recent times about whether or not, you know using racial, um criteria can be a reason for pulling people over. and it is been shown to be something that, even though it might not be mandated by, or allowed by different police forces it's certainly one of the criteria that they use for who they pull over. um that's definitely worth keeping in mind, so, Jim? 
S8: yeah, i i have a couple of points to make about, sentencing imprisonment. um, you guys use a lot of correlational, research um, in your arguments and i'd i- i'd like to question that um, one of the things i'd like to question is, you talked about how, uh crime rates are at, an all-time low right now, um while, rates of imprisonment are at an all-time high. therefore putting people in prison is reducing crime. well um i read the paper the other day and read that um, uh unemployment is at is at a thirty year low right now so, perhaps one of the reasons that crime is at, is an all-time low is that employment is an all-time low. we need to start looking, um at some of the other causes uh potential causes of crime such as economic situations and i think, that's doubly so when you look at some of the communities, um that are so affected by crime and, specifically crack cocaine since we've been, we've been talking a lot about that. um, what is it in these communities that are, that are causing a lot of people to turn to the crack, trade, for their source of income? um and what's causing a lot of people, who are so um, uh who're having such a, a tough time to turn to crack for, some kind of enjoyment. um so, you know, i think we need to consider those, those situations. we need to consider the context. um and we need to look beyond simple like one-on-one correlations to explain, um why crime has gone down. um furthermore i, i guess i'd just like to add, there is a lot of research that shows that if you put someone in, uh prison in one of these communities someone will take his place. um, you know why is that? why is there why is there a constant demand for people to, to deal drugs in these communities? and, um, and i i think we need to look at, contextual factors to determine that, so. 
S2: um, i just wanted to, i was talking a little bit about treatment and sort of the, the risk of uncertain success and whether or not drug treatment is an effective strategy and um, let me, well let me, first begin by saying that, w- there are some s- it is uncertain whether or not the war on the drugs is an effective strategy as well. uh the war on drugs like we've talked about before, hasn't really decreased, hasn't decreased drug use, and, has put a lot of people in prison. we have certain, racial impacts so i think that those are important, to look at. certain, disenfranchisement of, of a of one group, proportionately and the second thing is that we do, agree, i guess concede that treatment, in s- a treatment is, yo- you know, there's some cert- some levels that make it effective some levels that don't make it effective i think we talked about some of those before. the reason why treatment might be uneffective(sic) now is because, one major reason might be its resource disparity. that it receives so little of the funding and so little of the attention. um, and also might be the types of treatment, and i guess in the question and answer we could get in, more to that, to the types of treatment. that we do in in, that we currently, use in the status quo and whether or not, those are the most effective kinds. but that, that, treatment is, in many ways comparatively more effective than locking someone up like, Jim said there's, often you have someone else who will substitute to continue to commit that crime, and you basically put a person who, is, addicted, in, to jail, in an attempt to create a solution. there's no treatment in jail or prison to stop, that addiction. and, when their five year mandatory minimum runs out they'll have the same problem that they had they'll go back on the street with the same problem that, maybe we need to be honest and realize that we need to address that problem. and that, locking up a bunch of people and putting them somewhere where we can't see them, doesn't mean that they aren't addicts and don't have a problem that we could treat with other, solutions. and so, although we concede yeah it's tough, it is tough, to do treatment, it's it's way more difficult i think than, locking people up and throwing away the key. it is the solution, to, the problems that we have with drugs. it is the only real effective solution.
S1: do you wanna answer? 
S7: just one brief, point. i think also that by, um, our focus isn't just on treatment, in terms of cutting down the demand we're also, Missy has a whole list of other things like education. um, things like um, harm reduction strategies, that are also part of, what we're trying to push for in terms of, shifting the balance between, supply and demand side um, where the focus is on that. so, not it's not just treatment.
S1: okay. great. great. that was very good. you know, on both sides i think. um. i thought that was, for both, good presentations. um why don't uh we, why don't we take a couple of questions before we take a break, then we'll take some more, but just to get started off right now. um, questions that folks from the audience have? <SS LAUGH> you're not the audience.
S6: i- i- i- i i try to explain how, um, maybe other perspective because, i am from America. and and and uh uh uh i- i don't, i no from America. <LAUGH> [S1: mhm ] but in, mm, i- i think that eh, in America, there are the special problem about poverty because, here, now poverty is very strong concentrate. uh i think that this equation produce, special social, analysis? uh and, because um for example, i understand that uh, in, any place in in America the, institutional support, no exists. and, uh i i think that, is very complicated. situation with the, uh poor people in, in, special place in America. [S1: mhm ] um, uh uh, i think, about, what happened with the market, of the drugs. uh, for example we (xx) more flexibilization, allowed, about drugs. uh, what happened with the the poor people who are now, for example these people had mm, had more access to drugs. uh uh, and no support for the institution from America. um, uh uh uh i think about mm, what happened with the, education system. because mm, i understand that in, in, in this place or or neighborhood or, poor neighborhood. [SU-M: really? (xx) ] poor neighborhood. uh, the education now is no good. i uh i, there are several problems, here. um, o- other point is uh, other properties about, i think that uh, America have a special responsibility with the international community, because uh, other countries, eh combat, drugs. uh, for example, my country use, mm thir- twenty percent of the budget to combat drugs. um, and, uh i think in, in (xx) eh, eh, in ten thousand of the people, dead [SU-M: yeah? dead? ] dead? in my country uh, uh, i i think that, uh, America, uh have a special responsibility in United Nations about of the problem of the drug. uh, uh, i think that uh, these, i guess it is as necessary to have, [SU-M: mhm ] a a a i i- i- i- it's necessary to to think about what happened with uh the responsibility from from America.
S1: so you're suggesting that you didn't want to be on this side of the debate. <SS LAUGH> i see. 
S4: traitor 
<SS LAUGH> 
S6: (xx) 
SU-F: come on over to the WEED side (xx) 
S1: <LAUGH> alright. um, the_ b- bef- bef- before you step back into your your your assigned role, do you wanna, um, uh i i mean, do you wanna relate that back to, i mean how should drug policy and, i mean, how should the sentencing policies be different? are you suggesting that they should not be as strong as they are? um, i mean if, that, yeah i mean, is that is that what you're, what you're what you're pointing to there? 
S4: you know. like, what do you think should be different? [S1: about the ] were you talking about possession versus trafficking? [S6: uh ] is one thing that we talked about. [S6: uh ] we already this, 
SS: oh, okay. <SS LAUGH> 
S6: <LAUGH> uh, that is very good question. uh uh i i think for me the problem is very different. uh i think that the problem of the concern, is about problem of h- public health [S1: mhm ] uh for me. i i prefer for example the solutions from Germany, Poland [S1: hm ] um France about i i- uh, now, i th- i think that these countries, think that is better uh or models these solutions [S1: mhm ] about h- hel- health okay. 
S1: so the sorts of things that uh, uh Missy and their team were were saying 
S6: uh, uh, i i think that uh uh, the, the, the distribution and the um, traffic is a is, is a more problem about sentence. m- uh uh i think that uh, uh is different treatment about this issue.
S1: that's great. and now, um, i want you to go back to being a Sentencing Commission Member appointed by George Bush. <SS LAUGH>
S4: yeah, come back. <SS LAUGH>
S1: firmly in favor of strict and serious actions. uh does the audience have any questions they want to ask either of the teams? yeah, Harry?
S3: um, i guess i would address this mostly to the JAIL group. um and, reflecting on a lot of what uh Tonery said about this being part of a a wider political situation. why in the universe of things that you could address, as a social policy issue, in order to get at crime, would you target crack? i read a statistic that, eighty percent of the people who commit crimes are under the influence of alcohol by the legal standard. um, it seems to me that there's, there's a lot behind the fact that crack is singled out as something to be addressed, that has to do with demonizing poor minorities. so, could you react to that...?
S4: well, you know i'll start i mean, uh, i mean alcohol is legal, for starters. so, um, i mean i i don't know that we could really target alcohol per se. <LAUGH> we could target crimes committed, um, in general and, some percentage of those would be under the influence of alcohol but i don't know that that's really, i think when we're looking at crack you need to compare it to other illegal drugs. to compare apples to apples. and when you do that, um, i mean even Tonery when he talks about, the type of offenders who are sentenced, um for crack offenses, they, have much more prior arrests, they have much more, they have a more violent history. um, they're in general, they're more violent individuals. um, and you know i think that that's one, kinda indicator that in fact, you know there is more systemic violence associated with the crack trade. uh there's more crime that arises out of it. um, you know and like i say i i don't think that, uh you know methamphetamines like i, like i was pointing out are the second, uh most stringent mandatory minimum sentencing, that's currently on the books and those are, uh eighty-four percent whites that are affected. so, i think they are very real issues but, um, i mean i i think that we can't, you know ignore a very serious social problem, simply because a large percentage of one part of the population is engaged in it. i mean they talked about only fifteen percent of minorities, use cocaine but eighty percent are arrested for, cocaine offenses but i think the more, revealing statistic would be what, uh percentage of minorities are involved with trafficking cocaine. i mean you can, you know be involved with selling cocaine and not necessarily be using it. and i think that, the numbers bear out the fact that there yeah, there unfortunately is a higher number of minorities who are involved with the crack trade. um, 
S5: i wanna comment. just going back to, the_ how alcohol eighty percent of, violence. there are those, who, what was the statistic? i'm sorry.
S3: eighty percent of those who commit crimes are beyond the legal, limit for intoxication of alcohol.
S5: okay. um, i think that just, i think that that is a very serious, the implications of that are very serious and that is a problem that needs to be addressed. having said that, i think that we also cannot ignore, the problems associated with crack and, the violence associated with it. uh, i read in one of the articles that, um crack is associated with crime relating to its marketing and distribution more so than powder, and it gives four reasons. it, because of competing dealers, because of volatile dealing areas. crack dealers are more likely, to carry weapons and they're more likely to have an extensive record. to have committed a lot of other crimes and a lot of other violent crimes. it is a problem and just because alcohol is a problem doesn't mean that we should ignore, crack. we have to target both of them. and alcohol is a legal substance that we are legally allowed to use. because crack is illegal it contributes more to, the, crimes associated with the, um, i can't (xx) at this point 
S3: can we colloquy, or?
S1: sure.
S3: um... what i'd like to ask about is the is the [SU-M: especially (xx) ] fairness of it though. cuz it seems like we go off the, von Hirsch cliff of, like, getting into this black area where you trying to make one cause, of, a specific act more blame worthy than another. and shouldn't we be focusing on the crimes and not the person? in order to be fair? or not just target the or- i mean if more crimes are being done then that should be the standard. and, i don't think people would have an issue with fairness. but if you're looking at, what's causing people to do crimes and and, ascribing it a a higher level of, blame worthiness because they happen to be intoxicated with one form of, substance as opposed to another, i just don't buy it from the standpoint of fairness. 
S4: well um, first of all, like like i was saying before, if you wanna look at simply the particular crimes being committed that's great for that individual crime. you know that that's, perfectly fair, that's fantastic. but, the market, as a whole, the crack market, has specific, public health and violence and crime issues associated with it, that aren't present in other markets. we wanna squash the market. we wanna make the opportunity cost of dealing crack so high, that the market is not there anymore. now, that doesn't exist with any other drug, at this point. those sort of uh, you know, the market factors, uh that Holly mentioned, that um, you know have to do with its marketability, you know the types of things that we talked about that certainly doesn't exist, you know at the corner liquor store. it doesn't exist in the powder cocaine trade it doesn't exist in the marijuana trade it doesn't exist in the heroin trade. um, and so, you know maybe for each individual crime that approach's acceptable. but there are other issues here, that aren't addressed by that type of approach. and, you know i think that, you know, we ascribe more blame to cocaine because of the problems associated with its marketing. with i- associated with um its methods of distribution and that don't exist for other drugs. and that's why i think it's justified.
S5: i just wanna add one last thing and it's a quote from the U-S Sentencing Commission. they say, <READING> if a particular form of drug results in greater harms, than a different form of that drug, then logically a harsher penalty for the more harmful drug can be justified. </READING>
S2: can i comment?
S1: sure.
<SS LAUGH> 
S2: okay. um, uh, well, i just wanna com- i just wanna just sort of talk a little bit about how that statute has been implemented. i think that sort of, well, i'll just, give you some statistics about how the statute's been implemented. i think we sort of, talked about how if you have this really harsh penalty then that means you break down all the distribution networks for crack and that's not what's happened. um, only five percent of the people that we have arrested, for crack are high level crack dealers. people who are the high level crack dealers are smart, and what they do is they have their young kids, or they, their mules, um, that's what, that's just the term. young kids people on the street corners carry the large amount of crack. you're not punished, uh, under the law because, you're punished for how much of it you have on your person. and so you get your younger kids you have your women your low level dealers carrying all the crack. they're the people who get busted for having fifty-five or fifty grams of crack and that's why, uh seventeen percent of people, who are in federal prison for dr- for drug offense related to cocaine had no prior violent history. and fifty-five percent are only low level relationship to the crack trade. and that means that our laws, uh it sounds nice, but our laws, we, that people who deal crack have found a way to get around the laws. and we don't have high level crack dealers, in jail. that's not what's happening whatsoever. and so i i think that if we looked at severity, if that was maybe part of something, when we determine sentencing, we might be able to target, getting, we might be able to target people who committed more severe offenses and get them in to ja- jail and prison, at a rate that, made more sense than the people that we have currently behind bars, for our crack offenses. 
<SS LAUGH> 
S1: we'll put that and then we'll take a break. 
S8: oh, i don't wanna say, i might take up all the... go ahead.
S7: oh no, that's alright go ahead.
S8: okay. i i'll just i'll just say pretty briefly. um, common sense would dictate if you wanna solve a problem, you have to find the the root cause, of the problem. um, if we have, if if crack is, if crack is an epidemic in poor black communities, you know why is that? what's the cause? is the cause that poor blacks are genetically predisposed to doing crack? or that there's, if they have some, if there's some kind of moral deficiency? i mean i would, i would argue that's not the case. if if you eliminate those, as the causes, then you have to look at the environment. something in the environment is causing, poor blacks to, engage in drug trafficking, or e- e- e- engage in in crack trafficking, or use crack. and, if you really wanna solve the problem of crack, since that's what it, that's what the concern is then, shouldn't we look at those, factors? 
S7: um, actually Holly mentioned earlier when, you uh, were talking about children using, drugs, um, that, wouldn't it be better to have kids involved in positive things? that's one of the things that we're advocating by, shifting towards um, decreasing the demand. we're advocating programs for children we're advocating educational programs, alternatives to drug use like recreational programs after school, more jobs, for these high school age kids who, um you are so concerned about, being heavy drug users.
S1: um, if there are no objections, i think we should take a quick break here. and then come back and continue the discussion of, what you wanna say. i i mean you guys got, you know you know, barraged by attacks here if you wanna respond briefly that's fine, or if you wanna take a pause.
S4: well, i w- i would just say that, statistics can be used to show anything. <SS LAUGH> sixty-eight six- sixty-eight percent of all people know this... 
<SS LAUGH> 
S1: that's very helpful Justin. <SS LAUGH> um, the the folks who are doing um, next week's, the rehab and prisons. why don't we talk during the break? um, and it's Cathy Holly Harry Ally Susan and Jill. um, and we'll talk about what we're gonna do next week.
<BREAK IN RECORDING> 
S1: position. the basic, argument will be, prisons invest human resources and rehabilitation programs. um, in- in- so actually to say that, not only, you know, has this, been (xx) uh, and talk about why it's ineffective why it's unjust and why it's unfair to provide lots of programs. um and then go on to say what makes it hardest about a lot of programs. what, other important goals of running a prison might get undermined if you, spend too m- pay too much attention to programs and what things a prison should be doing instead... um, so i mean a- and again i i only mean those as general guidelines. um, i hope that will help (xx) if you guys have any suggestions i'm, happy to, entertain [S7: yeah ] them. 
S7: um, i'm not gonna take on the role of a prison management but, i can't imagine arguing that, rehabilitation is unjust. 
S1: mhm. [S7: yeah? ] oh, no, the, well, the i mean the the fairness issue is something like um, why are giving opportunities to get G-E-Ds and [S7: mhm ] to get all this treatment and so on, to people who've committed crimes, [S7: oh, okay ] when people out in in the world, um, uh who haven't committed crimes don't have the same opportunities. 
S7: don't have these opportunities 
S1: and they [S7: yeah ] (xx) 
S7: i think it's a pretty good way to break it down. i think it that's a pretty real. [S1: uhuh ] i don't know that it would necessarily be prison management that would be arguing, the the con side. i think it's more likely to be [SU-F: well ] of certain. 
SU-F: and politicians, there's definitely been a lot of debate, [S1: mhm ] in the political sphere. 
S1: yeah, nah, i think it would a, a decided minority (xx) 
SU-F: no, (xx) state legislature. (xx)
S1: yeah. that that's probably a good way to do it. um, and then, <LAUGH> uh, and maybe just adding in the issues around management that are described as uh, if it's you know feasible, to uh, for (an anthropology) analysis. but that's a good idea and unfortunately, they don't have the breakdowns as much as possible to, uh separate out what (xx) but uh, you know, generally, me speaking to a collect- you know the like the the, what's the the? Governor's Association um and you know them making the decisions about how much (xx) to... you know what i'm saying? 
SU-F: mhm 
S1: um, i was just gonna put you guys in whatever i have you here. um which means Cathy Holly and Harry on one team, Ally Susan and Jill are on the other. and who wants to call the, call the uh, pro treatment side. if you call it right you get pro treatment. 
SU-7: tails.
S1: okay... tails it is. now you're the pro team.
SU-7: pro treatment.
SU-F: i want i kinda wanted to be anti treatment 
SU-7: oh you did? 
SU-F: alright 
S1: (xx) this way (xx) um, and uh do you know uh, do you know Cathy's email address? (xx) i have it at, i think it's with M (xx) but i could always (xx) 
S1: alright um, oh do we have somebody out? making, quiz notes? le- let's regroup and they can come back in um, 
SU-F: am i supposed to go back over there? 
S1: yeah.
S1: alright. let's, regroup and uh, close that all the way. and and take some more, questions from the audience, about, drugs. why do you think they call it dope? <P :05> okay, what else do people want to ask the uh the teams here... John you got something?
S9: yeah uh, i well i heard uh, WEED, um rattle off the statistic about ninety-three percent of federal dollars are going toward supply-side strategies while only seven percent are going towards demand-side strategies. and i agreed with uh, Justin's contention about that, that about the fact that, you know um, i- it's very hard to prove kind of causal relationship b- between, um some of the prevention education and and uh treatment, measures that would go with the demand-side strategy, and, you know measurable, uh, measurable, effects and and less drug use. um, but at the same time i didn't hear kind of a, an alternative proposal um, from the JAIL side. are are you guys? you know, they_ the WEED had mentioned they wanted a fifty-fifty kind of, um budgetings, budgeting between the supply and the demand. are you, i guess, are you are you proposing to keep kind of a status quo with a ninety-three percent and a seven percent or, are you completely giving up, even though even though you can't, you can't, um, you know measure, you can't demonstrate a causal relationship, uh for some dema- demand side strategies. are you completely giving up on these types of strategies? or would you propose an increase in funding, or would you_ do you want the ninety-three seven kind of, ratio to stand or what? 
S5: i i'd like to respond to that actually uh, the statistic that i was working from was a seventy thirty split. [S9: okay. ] that seventy percent was spent on law enforcement, and personally i think that's a great split, personally, as a member of JAIL. <SS LAUGH> think that that's a great split. um, that, seventy percent on law enforcement does seem to be effective and thirty percent on education does seem to be targeting, groups of children um, that need this type of, [S9: um, okay. is- ] educational treatment programs.
S9: i'm just, is is there, is there a point at which, you know you've been talking about the fact that we need the supply strid- supply-side strategies to get the people off the streets to get them in jail you know. that crime crime has been going down because of, uh um the sentencing policies that you guys are propounding and, and stuff. but is there a point at which that that funding will change? i mean there's only, there are only so many people off the str- i mean, by your theory will get all the people off the streets and that's our priority and we get the crack out of people's hands. but don't we hafta at some point change kind of funding priorities to prevention? you know once we've got these people off shouldn't there_ i- is there going to be a change in the funding? is, or is this going to stay seventy-thirty or?
S5: i think part of the thirty does go to treatment. but i also think that private organization should, be the one to provide a lot of the treatment um, i think that the ment- mental health care industry in general, in the United States today is, a large chunk of it is privately funded. and i think that corporations do a better job than the government of, providing drug treatment.
S4: yeah, i'd like to say a couple things on that. um, uh for starters you know i'm not necessarily opposed to more treatment programs but i don't, want to cut into the law enforcement, budget. i don't wanna lessen that i don't wanna lessen the penalties i think that's a, a key, component. like, i don't i don't i don't think it's right to keep the amount of funding for this progra- this problem the same and shift, some of it to treatment. if you want_ you know i'm sure there's some environmental programs or something we can cut, to give more treatment <SS LAUGH> (aw shucks) i'm just joking. but i'm sure there's money in the budget, for treatment issues. if uh, if we want to increase that budget, as long as you don't cut into our funding that's fine. um, one other you know, point that i would like to make just kind of as an aside. you know, this team talked about how, oh you locked somebody up they come out with the same problem nothing's changed. i just wanna say that is not always the case. and i can give, uh one clear cut real world example and that's David Crosby. went into uh prison, <SS LAUGH> went into prison a crack head and a junkie and came out sober, kicked, kicked drugs cold turkey in prison. so, it does happen, you know there are individuals who can use that time, uh in prison to, kick drugs. i just wanna just make that point.
S1: alright. one point. David Crosby, uh. [SU-F: Stills and Nash ] yeah, Susan?
S10: i had a question about the fifty-fifty split of resources. now, i think it was Missy who said that the one hundred and one ratio for crack and powder cocaine is, is not backed up by studies it's an arbitrary number. fifty-fifty also seems to me kind of an arbitrary crowd pleasing, number. uh, and i was wondering, wh- how do you arrive at it? and uh, whether it really reflects, how much it cost to do, a treatment program versus how much it cost to, to run an enforcement program.
S2: oh well. co- the cost of, doing a treatment program like the most expensive treatment programs that we have cost about sixty-eight, they range, it ranges from eighteen hundred, to sixty-eight hundred dollars a year. in contrast the cost of putting someone in prison for a year is about twenty-five thousand dollars. so i mean the cost is much, less, for a treatment program. fifty-fifty is that, a lot of, lot of some, certain public policy institutes, like the RAND, corporation have done studies trying to look at a balanced approach. and balanced, get_ they used fifty-fifty, as the balance. and that's sorta so where took the, fifty-fifty balanced idea. i guess it is sort of crowd pleasing cuz it's, you know like even, but and they tried to look at an id- of an idea where you had treatment, adequate amounts of treatment and some changes to treatment, which i, we really haven't talked about but, some changes to treatment and uh, had the law, enforcement. and then they did i mean, a lot of what we're talking about does come from their studies about the cost, and about the, effectiveness and they concede, you know, some problems with the effectiveness but they think that it's a much much better solution than, law enforcement. so that's where we got fifty-fifty. 
S10: but what does it mean if it doesn't mean that, you said there's a high, high price for putting somebody in jail as for your low price program. it doesn't mean have, ten programs for every person in jail so it's balanced out.
S2: oh oh, are you saying like, does it mean fifty-fifty in terms of dollars or does it mean fifty-fifty in how far the dollars go? is that the question? 
S10: i i'd like to know what it means (that's it.)
S2: i mean i- i think that fifty-fifty means in terms of the money, spent. half the money is spent, on treatment, half the money is spent, on, law enforcement. maybe the half that's spent on treatment goes, a lot farther. uh, you get more bang for your buck in that fifty than you get in the other fifty. but, it means, a split of the, the federal money. they would spend half and half.
S10: but how does that make sense? given that law enforcement is so much more expensive, than social programs? 
S2: because i, their argument is law enforcement doesn't, law_ yeah it's more expensive, law enforcement doesn't work and produces worse, results so, it's fine i- i mean, it's better to spend less money on it, and you get more effective spending when you spend on, decreasing the amount that people, uh use when do prevention. basically reducing the amount of people who would be involved in trade or in possession. and i think that that's, where they're coming from, when they...
S7: i can speak to that a little bit as well. a lot of the, the mayors who have looked at addressing, um sort of, drug problems within their own cities, have looked at Baltimore as um, good example of that. have looked at increasing availability, of drug treatment programs. um the mayor of Baltimore argues that, unless every person who, um, wants drug treatment has it available to them like on demand. because um, of the way that drugs cycle. you may want, drug treatment real bad when you're o- in withdrawal but by the time you score your next hit you're not particularly interested, in receiving treatment at that point. unless it's available, on demand for people, that, it's ability to actually help people is much reduced. and in order to make it available, on demand for people there has to be a huge increase in expenditure in that particular area.
<P :05> 
S1: okay. any more from the audience right now or, Leslie did you have a, question?
S11: yeah i have a question for JAIL. i just want to know if, if the, um, harsher penalties were meant to have like a deterrent effect in themselves. cuz they mentioned deter people from using drugs people from selling drugs or both, and how effective do you think that would be?
S4: um, you mean the mandatory minimums? [S11: yeah ] whether they're supposed to have a deterrent effect? um, you know, i i, my feeling is that there supposed to have the same deterrent effect that all, uh punishments have. um, i mean that all criminal justice, um, you know has in terms of, knowing that if you get caught, you know you're going to, go to jail. um, i don't know that, i i think the best, deterrent is keeping the individuals who are locked up from committing crimes, you know the incapacitation effect. i mean because drugs are addictive, uh i think the deterrent effect is negligible. because, you know if you're addicted to, cocaine you're probably going to use it, despite, society telling you that it's not right and that you'll get locked up if you do so. but i think the, incapacitation effects of putting criminals away who would be dealing, um putting users away, who are addicted and maybe forcing them to examine their addiction um, rather than being out on the street committing crimes to feed that addiction i think that's more, of the, you know that's the more effective part of the strategy. not so much the deterrence...
S1: if i could follow up on that. um, the... uh, we made you know a very strong argument that there is not much evidence that there has been any sort of public safety benefit, whether it's from deterrence or from, incapacitation and, you know, though the person locked up, uh can't commit a crime we all know that, uh uh, that somebody will take, his or her place out in the world and and and cause the same, level of mayhem that that that the person locked up would've caused. um, and so they've provided all this evidence that suggests that whatever the mechanisms that these public safety benefits aren't materializing. that, um, if the risk had been higher the cost of coc- of crack would've gone, uh, up but in fact it went down. that if uh, arrests stopped crime the streets would be_ you know we're arresting at you know, at enormous rates and we would've cleared the streets of a lot of these dealers, and that's doesn't seem to be happening. um, uh uh, and you know, and and you know Jim made some some points about you know your large argument about, uh you know about, uh you know that crime rates, um have gone down as incapacitation, has gone up isn't really valid, because you know, the gross national product hasn't gone up while the number of pet hamsters in Nevada has has gone up and so you know <SS LAUGH> that level of correlation doesn't doesn't quite work. so i mean given all these, you know it, uh uh uh, counterarguments to your public safety arguments i mean where does that where does that leave you? i mean does it still, make sense to have these, strong penalties if i- uh i mean do you think that we're getting something from it and that these counterarguments are invalid or or? how would you respond to that? 
S4: well, <LAUGH> uh, i i think we are getting something out of it. i think that um, i mean i trying to think of how vast to structure this argument. um... i i think that if you look at um... <LAUGH> uh well you know you can claim that the, overall picture you know could be, uh you know that it's correlated with many things and and that there's not necessarily a causal relationships there. um, and that, that may or may not be true. but if again if you look at some get tough, uh programs in certain areas of the country like New York City like the New York City subways you can kinda see it's, you know, some of the get tough programs it's hard to believe there's not some causal relationship there. and i would s- i would say that i believe there is at least some causal relationship on the national level. although, it's very difficult to prove because there's so many things going on. and, in addition i think that, if you look at how dangerous this drug is and what a serious problem and the serious problems it causes. you know i don't think that the right approach is simply to, just sort of say well, there's no, uh you know we should just give up. you know this is a very serious problem these people are serious criminals they cause a lot of violence they cause a lotta crime, and yet you know since there's not a direct causal relationship that i can show on a national level, over twenty years. you know therefore we we shouldn't be, uh locking 'em up. i mean i i think that, you know they're committing serious crimes, the drug itself is more dangerous than other drugs therefore, these kind of penalties are justified.
S1: mhm, so, even if they don't necessarily have public safety benefits that these people have done wrong. 
S4: i i would say, i i believe that there, are some public safety benefits, it's not directly provable. but yeah i mean it's it's a, it's a bad, it's a bad drug, it needs to be punished. [S1: mhm ] you know <LAUGH> appropriately. 
S1: um, a- as an aside the_ i don't know if anybody else noticed this, but Tonery's argument, he's the one who mentioned this thing about, you know crack prices went down when they should've gone up if the drug was working. but then later on he talks about for other reasons the proportion of the population that was using drugs went down. well, those for other reasons should also the cause the price of crack to go down. and so, even the drug war was increasing the price, then that effect would not necessarily be that it would go up. i mean the drug mor- war may have kept the price from falling [S4: mhm ] further than it did, given that at a national level there was much less demand. so he sort of undermined his own argument there, [S4: there ] i thought. 
S4: there, there was something else from Tonery that i thought was contradictory. i think it had to do with uh, i i i'd have to look, you know to the book but i think it had to do with uh, the people who were um, that people should've known that you know, more blacks would be convicted but then he starts talking about, i thought he said something else that contradicted that. i don't i'd have to look at it.
S1: mhm. they all contradict, DiIulio contradicted himself too. if like 
S9: i think, uh sorry to badger you guys, for uh, JAIL. i think one of the criticisms of the drug war in general, um, by a lot of people who were against it in the public policy arena and and in the political arena, is that the fact that there's, first of all, this that the causal relationship, you know, is kinda sketchy as far as if it's really, if this is what's really, um lowering, crime rates or drug use. but but also the fact that, it doesn't look like there's any, end in site. you know, and and, no one has really, you know when we started this war, you know when Ronald Reagan or George Bush or whoever started the war on drugs, you know, [SU-M: Nixon ] um, they never they never kinda decided, uh you know, they never said when it would be over. um, or or what would be success. an- and so i guess i'd like to hear from you guys what_ i heard the bottom line as far as crack cocaine. it's going to be off the streets you know you're gonna stop when there's not one more gram of crack on the streets and and in kids' hands, um but, i'd kinda like to hear what your measures of its success are. because, i i i'm just, i i think one of the criticisms is, people think we're just gonna keep building prisons um, keep locking people up until, there are kinda no more prisons to be built and no more people to be locked up um, i guess what's your response to that? 
S5: i mean i guess that, maybe that will keep happening for a while but it has to peak at some point, and then start going back down i think that, our ultimate goal is we have decided as a society that drugs are illegal because they're bad, drugs in general. all drugs. and until, we either decide that drugs are not necessarily bad, or, that, it's not an interest, it's not important to society, to, prevent the use of them, the drug war will continue. and i guess that's a good thing. because it will make, our streets safer um, it'll make our people healthier, we'll have more, 
S9: well, we can have, i mean the society can think drugs are bad, and we don't have to fight a war on them. i mean there's other ways to kind of prevent them there's other ways to address the issue, rather than wage a war. 
S5: i think that if we're not actively if we're not actively fighting them than we are condoning them.
S1: but at what point would you lift martial law is maybe the question [S9: right, i mean i guess, yeah ] (now) 
S4: i i don't that there is a point, that we should lift martial law. i think that these policies [S9: really, Justin? ] are in place <LAUGH> (xx) and that they should continue unt- right. exactly, is gone from the streets. 
S8: until every, every last gram of crack cocaine is gone. that's when you lose martial law.
S9: okay. that's interesting.
S1: <SS LAUGH> i suppose it turns to realism with the two groups i don't know if i, although that may be actually very realistic. <LAUGH> um, okay good. uh, are there other questions from the audience i know i have some... um, well i'll i'll while you're thinking i'll, uh, ask some of the questions that i had. um, i wanna ask a question of of WEED you make a lot of this, um, you know, <LAUGH> uh, you make a lot of this uh, racial disparity argument. that uh, the, drug war in particular the crack cocaine disparity has had a greater impact on, on blacks than it has on whites, um, but, uh, as as you know Justin pointed out that's that's true, of m- methan- i mean all all laws have some sort of disproportional impact that methamphetamines, you know disproportionately affect whites. uh, if you look back at the you know racketeering statutes that were passed earlier in this century i mean they had a disproportionate impact on Sicilians. why w- why is it that, the fact that a law has a disproportionate impact on some racial or ethnic group why does that invalidate the law? we know it's constitutional but, um, why why is that an argument to, to repeal this law? i'm not clear on... 
S8: uh, well i guess i i 
S2: you can, i i thought that Ally might wanna... sorry 
S7: no if you wanted to Jim, that's okay. 
S8: oh no, go ahead 
S7: um, well i, i think that part of the reason why it's questionable, is that, um, we were talking before, they mention that, obviously drug u- use of this drug doesn't occur just in the black community. um whereas in the case of, perhaps racketeering and Sicilians, there was, um a direct correlation i mean definitely the who- the idea that um, that a particular law can keep everyone from doing something, like sure that's definitely constitutional and in theory, the law is constitutional but in practice that's that's what were concerned about is the way that it's actually, um, sort of, doled out, and that that partic- that is the part that's inequitable. 
S1: mhm.
S2: did you wanna (say anything?) 
S8: sure, um, well i guess i'll go ahead and reveal myself as a flaming liberal, um <SS LAUGH> basically i think the difference, uh the fundamental difference is um, when you compare the situations wh- where Sicilians are unduly affected or whites are unduly affected because they, you know perpetuate more of those crimes. i think you have to ask yourself like, um is this country in a situation where the different, races, you know traditionally have had equal status. and i think no. i think when you have a law, that unduly affects a, group that has been in, you know a group, that's been in power and has not been discriminated against i think it's different, when you pass a law that affects a group that, has been discriminated against and has, maybe doesn't have the status or the resources because of this long history which continues to this present day. um, and so i think you to be aware of, kinda the power differential, between different groups. um, and and society needs to address that, power differential and that status differential rather than, look at the symptoms of that, which might be crack trade in inner cities, where there're n- there are no jobs and where inner city residents suffer from discrimination, um rather than addressing the crack trade, looking at the sort of the larger issue. 
S1: mhm mhm, well that's a, interesting argument but probably not very popular on the hal- floors of Congress these days but um, uh, but one follow up to that um, i mean you guys suggest i think it was Missy who in her talk, suggested that you could capture some of these additional harms that you concede are associated with crack, through the use of guidelines that say, you know if the person who is, dealing you know either in coke or crack has uh you know weapons on them or is uh involving, uh youth in the distribution of their drugs or, all the other you know thirteen or so things that, uh were in you list, that you could make guidelines that would capture those harms and make, larger sentences for them and not directly ask you know what form of cocaine are we talking about here? but those guidelines would still, probably have this disproportionate racial impact so why would they be any more just than, than uh, than the straight differential between crack and cocaine.
S2: well i think that that, i was waiting for someone to say that, um i think that uh, i think that though that that underestimates the way that the sentencing laws are enforced now. [S1: mhm ] uh, because it's not that, oh well this th- (xx) the assumption of that question is that sentencing laws are enforced fine now so that if you were to, for instance target people who who carry a gun or have a firearm which more often happens in the crack trade than in the cocaine trade, or use children which more ave- often happens in crack than cocaine well then you just, you'd replicate the same thing. [S1: mhm ] but the, i think the problem is that they're not being enforced correctly now you do have a lot of people who are nonviolent offenders. you have a lot of people in for just the possession part [S1: mhm ] of, the mandatory minimum which, you know is just, holding it. uh, you do have a lot of disparity in the enforcement the r- initial arrest, and the ones that get carry on to prosecution so i think that, uh, in som- we're not saying, just because, you know you have, there are some, more people of a certain, racial, class arrested than people who are white then obviously there's a problem there's a mass, disproportionality. it exists in the enforcement and i think that our guidelines would make it better. would they eliminate all racial, would they eliminate it, entirely? i'm not i'm not a hundred percent certain but i do think that taking, i i don't know if they'd eliminate a hundred percent but uh, taking into account that, those levels disparities, i really do think would make it much more just than the, the way the mandatory minimums, exist now.
S1: mhm, that's sure responsive. other questions Harry?
S3: DiIulio points out that most of the crimes, committed around the drug trade are committed against people, um, who are minorities. so, um, how would particularly the WEED group balance the, the bord- the burden of enforcement which is disproportionate, on these communities? um, with the need to, um, in order to be fair in terms of e- equal protection of the laws to be there and to fight the crime so that, economic demon- development can come in?
<P :05> 
S7: well, um, i can speak to that a [SU-F: (xx) ] just to start off, um, that, yes initially the black community was strongly in favor of disproportionate sentencing for crack offense as opposed to cocaine that's definitely true. but as they've witnessed sort of the impacts, of disp- disproportionate in sentencing, a lot of, very visible black leaders have sort of switched sides and said okay is it really worth_ they're asking sort of the same questions that we are, is it really worth the trade-off here, in terms of damage to family structure in our community? um, the fact that the second gen- for the second generation um, there's a huge proportion of black wage earning men being removed from our community are those, costs worth, you know sort of, i mean they're ma- they're trying to balance that as well and so i think that, um, w- i think we need respond to that community's, what they're, i agree with you we do need to respond to what they're asking for but i think now, they are also asking the questions that we're asking... 
S8: yeah, i'd i'd just like to add to that i think that, i think that if you ask members of these of um, of these communities, would you rather, have us protect you by helicopters constantly flying over your neighborhood and, a police person you know a police officer on every corner or, would you rather have, you know, near your neighborhood and accessible to your neighborhood jobs that pay a living wage, um and schools that aren't dilapidated, and, um, [SU-F: (i thought the same) community ] <SU-M LAUGH> but, i mean i think that you know this this argument that like if you, because it's black on black crime if you don't wanna have these kinds of law enforcement, you know procedures in these neighborhoods, that you're not interested in in, in protecting them is, you know pretty disingenuous cuz i, i think it assumes that's the only option, that's the only means that you can protect, an area like that.
S2: i was gonna say the same thing. it also, kind of assumes that treatment doesn't do anything to lessen those problems. and i think that, we think that, it probably would. i mean if you, get, have less addicts, you d- decrease the demand for drugs, you do decrease, the cri- some of the crime and some of the problems involved with drugs, and so i think that, that i should tack that on.
S8: (beautiful.)
S4: um, i gotta a couple points i wanted to, talk, lob over in your direction. <SS LAUGH> [S2: alright. ] <LAUGH> um, one is uh, is just on the the issue of the, the deterioration of neighborhoods. i just wanna reiterate the point that um, that basically inner-city crime breeds, poverty as well. that you know, it's not as though, uh you know those two exist, completely separate in a vacuum so i think it's important to deal with the crime problem. and also this idea that, um, that uh, you know, these enforcement strategies have no effect and i just actually wanted to, cite uh, James Q Wilson, who looked at studies um, that found a reduction a in heroin use among young blacks in Harlem. uh and when the youths were asked why they stopped more than half answered quote trouble with the law or the high cost and the high cost is of course, res- the result of the law enforcement. so i think it's, um, you know i think there's some e- you know evidence albeit perhaps anecdotally that, that these kinds of types of strategies do work. and finally um, on the, disproportionate, uh level of drug use among blacks versus drug arrests, this is something that Tonery talks a little bit about he says that the arrest rates are out of sync with the drug use and he cites, uh i think, several studies but, in an earlier part of his, his work he he talks about, how the um, i think it's the, uh, it's basically the percentage of male arrestees by race testing positive for any drug or cocaine, and if you look at that it's clear that, for both, any drug and cocaine, among blacks that are arrested, there's a very high percentage as high as seventy percent in some cities like Houston, uh generally hovering around forty-five to fifty percent, who test positive for these drugs so i thi- and he makes the point that, there is a small, you know portion of the population that are hard core users, that has not mirrored the national trends. and i think these are the, the people who are being affected by these laws. so i think it's, you know, it's not accurate to say well these are racist laws because they don't mirror, the actual drug use, because when you look at, there is a certain, population, that they do reflect the drug use accurately and then they're applied fairly in those cases so i kinda wonder how you, would respond to those, three.
S1: do you guys wanna, respond?
S7: okay. well, that, that very well may be true, but, i think you can't make an argument that no, whites use crack cocaine. however um, there has been no white person ever, who's been convicted of a crack offense in Boston, Denver, Chicago, L-A, Dallas, Miami and numerous other cities. <SU-M LAUGH> how do you how do you explain, that discrepancy unless you say like, there's absolutely no white use of crack cocaine, which is clearly not true.
S8: kinda kinda lob that one back to you. 
S4: hot potato <LAUGH> well, i'm not from Boston L-A <SS LAUGH> Houston or any of those cities, so it's hard for me to speculate on, law enforcement in those cities, um, you know if uh, you know perhaps the uh, the white market is different from the black market in those cities, you know, i i don't know. um, yeah. 
S5: just because the law enforcement is not adequately doing it's job [S4: right. ] does not mean the laws, instituted are bad or wrong. 
S7: well we, i don't think that we originally said that the laws instituted were bad i mean clearly, as you've already pointed out, they've been declared constitutional. again what we're concerned about is the way that they're implemented and we've said that, previously and i think this is a clear example the, the fact that there have been absolutely, zero, um convictions of whites for crack offenses in in any of_ those are major U-S cities [S5: yeah. ] with huge populations. um, i think it does show a disparity in the way that those those laws are actually implemented. and that's what we're majorly concerned about. 
S5: i think therefore we need to <SOUND EFFECT> step up our law enforcement and, <SS LAUGH> and, work harder
<SS LAUGH> 
S4: well the other thing is, we're, like we've talked about our main concerns are with the crack market, the violence it causes and, i think the crack market in many cities are certainly concentrated in areas where it's not likely, uh, on a random sweep, that you might find a high percentage of white, uh, people i mean they're mostly minority neighborhoods they're mostly poor. so i think, um, yeah there's gonna be, you know, there's gonna, you know it's gonna be hard to, pinpoint, uh, where white people are getting crack, in some cities but, uh i think by targeting the market it's just, it's gonna be a natural (xx)
S2: yeah but i ki- i kinda think two things about that, i think first, you have to look at the reason, why you target, why crack is targeted and if there is a motivation behi- and obviously i mean the result when you target the crack market is that you target, African-Americans with less money and there, there might be something behind the original motivation behind why you decided to target, you've kinda gotta examine that. second thing, is that i think that, and you kinda, i mentioned i think that cra- that_ i don't know if i agree, that, the only segments of communities of, of the African-American community affected by the drug war are hard core drug users i don't know if that like, that you just said a minute ago i don't if i agree with that, i think that it's broader, and i think it has affected, i think it has affected, a lot of lives, that were people who, weren't hard core crack users. and i i just i i'm not sure that i, a hundred percent agree that it's as targeted it's as direct as go (xx) 
S4: right. well well, my response to that is how many people've been affected by the systemic violence associated with the crack trade? stray bullets that kills kids? how many people have been affected by, the spread of H-I-V through high risk behavior? how many people have been affected because they've been, you know crack babies, and they haven't yet even, uh, (they) come into this world and they come in disadvantaged? i mean, you know you're talking about the effects that uh, take place, you know presumably criminals and there families. uh, and you know that's certainly, that's ce- that's that's an issue and that's a problem but, i think just as much of an issue, are the effects that, you know law abiding people in those communities have to face every day. because of this you know this, high systemic violence associated with the crack market.
S2: yeah but i mean, i do think, i mean i think about fifteen minutes ago, we talked we had a long discussion about black on black crime and how we think that that, relates back to whether or not there should be, whether or not that justifies the war on drugs. i mean, yeah there's, there, like i think that that Ally said, there originally might have been a high level of support and that high level of support has really eroded after, you know communities are really trying to balance, a lot of these issues.
S1: Leslie did you have a follow-up on this point? you had your hand up earlier.
S11: i just, i had wanted to say something about the quote that Justin read which i think is a little bit misleading in, in portraying how many um, that are arrests that actually use drugs and trade because, a lot of dealers have to like i guess like you were talking about earlier, how they transform the powder into the rock cocaine and a lot of dealers, that sell crack cocaine have to go through that process and in that process, um, of i guess they call it cooking crack or whatever they do, um, the potency of crack cocaine is that it gets into your system just as if you were using it but a lot of them don't actually use it it's just in their system because, as a dealer or whatever they have to go through that process and that, so i don't know (just get tested as kinda) 
S1: mhm. so that some of the people that s- purportedly have it in them they weren't actually using it but, it doesn't exactly paint a picture that they're not culpable, i mean they were cooking it and, <SS LAUGH> and that to me doesn't suggest that <LAUGH> but, point taken. um, i i think this is a lit- a little bit related to some of what we were just talking about. i wanted to ask um, JAIL a question they, uh, especially in in Jorge's uh talk he he described how, you know as evidence of the idea that crack is, more destructive than cocaine um, you talked about how, uh, you know almost twice as many crack defendants versus cocaine defendants have criminal records. um, uh, that they're, more likely to already be under criminal justice sanctions that they're already say on probation when they're arrested for, for crack. um Justin had some similar points about how, uh, you know people who were arrested for crack are the most likely of of people arrested for any drug to have a criminal record, but those things are already taken into account in the guidelines, we already have an axis that says what is your criminal record? um, and we increase your, your sanction if you have a criminal record, why do we need to take it in account in effect a second time, um in making this distinction between the mandatory minimum for crack versus cocaine? aren't we double counting in effect, these these harms? 
<P :04> 
S4: uh, i, well, i don't think that_ <SU-F LAUGH> i think we already talked a little bit about this, i don't think that that, the sentencing guidelines address increased addictiveness, um, they don't incre- they don't deal with uh, the increased attraction due to cheap marketability um, and they don't really have any effect on the market they only effects on the certain individuals being, [S1: mhm ] being, um, being sentenced, so 
S1: so, you might withdraw those other statements about why crack is more dangerous in favor of this more modest list. 
S4: well, i i think it's certainly, um, i think it's more dangerous for all those reasons. uh, you know i, but i think that sentencing guidelines alone don't take everything into account, [S1: mhm ] and i think that, you know if we want to, basically the the fa- list of factors that we originally talked about justify why, crack in general is more destructive, [S1: mhm ] and regardless of whether, the particular person you arrest, is, uh violent or nonviolent, you know the market as a whole creates these problems so, we kinda take the view that we wanna smash the market. and we wanna make, [S1: mhm ] um, you know, whether of not you're using a weapon, we wanna make the penalties reflective of, the overall systemic harm, from the market, and that's 
S1: mhm, well, i mean how does WEED respond to that i mean you seem to wanna go back to a sorta one-to-one ratio for crack versus cro- cocaine penalties that, the same amount of either drug would trigger the same penalty, um, but doesn't that neglect some of these, these these things that aren't captured by your guidelines the way Justin points out. it neglects the increased addictiveness, it uh, neglects the fact that it's a drug designed to appeal to you know the poor and vulnerable because it's, you know marketed in these little vials and, it, would it- a- does the does the one-to-one ratio do justice to the differential harms associated with crack?
S2: right. i'm, i'm not a hundred percent sure it's a one_ i mean there are, there are the other, facts. i'm not sure it's a hundred, a one-to-one ratio. you might understand it better than i do, so maybe it is one-to-one ratio. [S1: oh well. um, you know right now it's a hundred-to-one ratio, but but but, but you're arguing for a one-to-one ratio. ] but uh, right right so, the reduction, but okay, well no, i don't even know if their, i don't know if their reduction is a one-to-one, i'm sure that i, think that it i- their their paper, the U-S Commission. i'm not sure that [S1: right ] you might i was just saying that you might understand that paper, 
S1: yeah, there's a little bit of other history that we'll come back to [S2: okay ] in just a minute [S2: but, um ] but, let's assume your arguing for a one-to-one ratio and how would you make that argument?
S2: well, um, in terms of whether or not, whether or not, they're, it's more addictive or etcetera, etcetera. i mean it, what, the Commission basically said was that there weren't very good, pharmacological studies that could prove whether or not, uh, crack or cocaine was more addictive what you could prove, was that crack has a more intense high, even though cocaine had a high which lasted longer. so, shorter more intense crack, longer lasting with cocaine they had really a lot of, ran into a, difficulties in sort of determining well okay, what does, what does that, mean? um, in fact a, in fact a lot and throughout a lot of their recommendations, they just kept finding they didn't have any studies, to prove, crack or cocaine were different for any of these things. that there was no study that proved the difference between how much crime you commit with crack or cocaine, no study that proved, b- big differences in death no study that proved that in in some some were so s- ridiculous that they were finding like three studies across the entire country, that looked at, crack and cocaine and how much more crime you committed. you know, they they only had three that surveyed like seven hundred they had nothing to base these_ and i think that their feeling was a lot of this seems to thus be, created on, conjecture. the idea that we think, we have this gut feeling that crack, is worse. and that since we can't prove it through any studies [S1: mhm ] i mean they do should study 'em we should look we should figure out i mean if we're gonna have these laws we gotta figure out why do we have these laws is there basis for them we should have a study about that, but, um, if we can't figure it out, if it's just conjecture then it should be one-to-one and we should other, crimes, that uh, that can, tell the, or other, levels of severity to see what people should be sentenced by. that basically seemed to me what they were saying. 
S1: so this sort of residual, differential harms that Justin mentioned you think that there's not enough evidence that they are in fact different. 
S2: i think i think, i, definitely that's the U-S Sentencings Commission's argument [S1: mhm ] that that, they do conce- i mean they concede a lot that they think, i mean i think that_ see that's why i'm not that they think it's one-to-one. they concede a lot that there may well be things, that, or, public health risks with crack that mean maybe, there should be a higher punishment but then maybe they think that's overwhelmed by that, that should be determined, [S1: by the individual. ] by the individual offender, i mean, so.
S1: you wanna a quick rebuttal and then we'll? 
S4: yeah, just a quick rebuttal. in terms of addiction, um, they state quite definitively that, well i'll quote.<READING> there is a greater </READING> [S2: right ] <READING> likelihood of addiction resulting from the casual use of crack cocaine. </READING> (xx) 
S2: right but then they say that there's not eno- i mean that's from the limited studies and that's why i'm saying that i'm not sure_ that's what i was confused by it, i'm not sure that they, say, it should be one-to-one. [S1: well we'll come back to that in just a second. ] and so you know, you got some inside, hot info on that that i don't have you know and so.
S1: well, yeah, we'll come back to that <S2 LAUGH> in just a minute. John?
S9: well is seems like that's, that's a fair argument as far as sentencing policies for users, um, but as far as sentencing policies for, sellers and guys who cook this stuff up, i think the fact that, i think Justin's and JAIL's point um, i- is pretty well taken the fact that, um, when you convert cocaine into crack form it's more easily accep- accessible, i- it's easier to sell and um, basically it's easier acces- i i- it's more easily accessible to, uh poor people and and younger people, and and i think that's, that's a real problem and the- that's a problem of prevention as well if we're talking about prevention, um so, what would you say about different sentencing policies as far as, as far as um, sellers go? 
S2: we- well i think that in those thirteen guidelines, i didn't read them all. but, they are like, some of them are like, wer- like, they address those concerns, who, who was targeted, i can, even i can find them, i don't know where they are, but. 
S9: but i mean those would be different between coc- you you would, say that those should be different between cocaine and crack then right? 
S2: i mean the- they use, y- i mean, it's since i mean my guess is since those are things that say would be, that you determine to increase the severity, and if those happen more like, more readily in a crack trade then yeah, it would cause a distinction between crack and cocaine. [S9: okay ] d- do you see what i'm saying? 
S9: so there should be i mean there should be a difference between how we treat, cocaine and crack as far as selling and and preparing those but not using.
S2: as far as what happens in the individual crime, but not what, what happens in the individual crimes, with the aspects of an individual crime. not just, we should blanketly have a distinction between crack [S9: right ] and cocaine and it should be a hundred and one, because we already have these ideas, we have an idea, what happens in every crack crime. if that doesn't happen in every crack crime then we should look at the individual crime to determine if those things happen. and maybe some of those things also happen in cocaine crimes, that we have captured in the way that we have our mandatory minimums.
S5: i just wanted to point out real quick that the, the thirty- thirty-six states don't use the hundred-to-one ratio. and, don't necessarily apply the mandatory minimums and do, a- a- allow discretion, in their cases.
S2: yeah, is that is that the loophole thing that they they were talking, talking about in the 
S1: what we're debating here is all, everybody understands this is all federal [S2: federal, right ] law and that uh, there is a lot of discretion about which forum we try your 
S2: w- there's also, and i mean i also know that in nineteen ninety-four, there was a federal, they tried to institute a federal, loophole. to try to make, to try to, lessen. although, the only, only, i think it was something like, thirty people have had their sentences lessened, so that the loophole doesn't really get used ever.
S1: um, i i had one more, uh, question for JAIL and i wanna, wrap up unless people have some burning, questions. i i don't think we've covered this one yet, there was a discussion in, uh the report by the Sentencing Commission of of what, seemed to me a a pretty, serious disparity and it was the disparity between, um, the sentence that the the the guy with, the cocaine that distributes it to people who make crack, what sentence that person gets versus what sentence all the people to whom he distributed. and so you could have somebody who had four hundred grams of cocaine, uh, and distributed it to you know fifty different crack dealers and those crack dealers would five years in jail, and the cocaine dealer would not, because he hasn't reached that mandatory minimum. doesn't this strike you as unequitable, unjust i mean, that this is clearly where the, the person high up on the distribution chain is getting off, um, and the people much closer to the street are not getting off just because, by virtue of being at the l- at the retail level, they need to uh you know they have to convert it into crack and so they have the harsher punishments. [SU-F: that's right ] shouldn't we a- reduce the pen- the disparity if for no other reason then because of this, this sort of perversity of the law? 
S4: well i'll, i'll start us off i guess um, you know i, my, my feeling on that is that, the f- the the distributor is high up on the powder cocaine, tree. whereas the retailers are a- actually the people who've, taken the extra tre- step, converted that cocaine into crack cocaine. um they are the ones who, took that step and are now selling and distributing a more dangerous drug [S1: okay ] so, 
S1: but those people, you know the hu- the distributors they know that's gonna they know who buys who they're selling it to. 
S4: were they, b- were they were they forced to, change that into uh crack cocaine they could have sold that on the street as powder cocaine. and ni- none of them would've hit the mandatory minimums. the fact is, they took the extra step, [S1: mhm ] and and not you know, it's not exactly, a a step that's taken with an eye towards anything other than their own economic interests. i mean they can sell more crack cocaine for more money, uh by converting it, [S1: mhm ] so, you know i i think that, you know they, you know frankly, they deserve it, i mean they 
S1: but couldn't you look at it the other way the, the distributor with the cocaine did not take the step because they knew this issue of punishment, they kn- they they_ in their heads they are in the crack business but, they're not gonna convert it into crack until the last minute, uh because they know the punishments are more severe. 
S4: right. 
S5: if the other, if the people who do convert it, don't wanna get caught, if they see that what the penalties are then they don't have to they can wait, they can buy it in powder form take it home to their kitchen add some baking soda, some water and microwave it and then they won't be caught either, they'll it'll you know? 
S1: mhm, so sell sell cocaine on the street with a recipe to your clients 
S5: they don't have to convert it in large quantities. with yeah, and with really, <SS LAUGH> yeah, they could sell it in really really, in a lot smaller quantities, that will be converted into the quantities into the gram, [S1: mhm ] quantit- i think it's sold in grams, <S5 LAUGH> that it will be, turned into crack. i- i mean
S4: right, my opinion, yeah, we should [SU-F: (xx) opinion ] make the penalties so harsh, and so certain that even those on the street know, [S1: mhm mhm ] uh that you know, that r- risk, uh you know, five years in jail for a ve- a very small amount.
S1: i find this a tough one to answer, good, good job trying. <SS LAUGH> i'd like to see how people who actually do believe this answer that question cuz it's, a little bit boggling to me. uh are there any many more burning questions or should we wrap up? i wanna get into a little bit of what happened to this report afterwards. um, unless people have other questions they wanna ask real quick. um, okay great. that was very good, and esp- with you know a few exceptions about you know taking away from environmental uh, policy for support. <SS LAUGH> i, the the, what i liked about this the the realism factor that you both took moderate, positions and you still took you know positions on your respective side, but they were moderate enough to, you couldn't you know have the out of simply taking an extreme position that nobody really believes so, i- i think that was very good. so, um, uh, i wanna follow up on uh, you know what happen- we we read the nineteen ninety-five i think it was released in February, uh, of ninety-five, the Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy Report that the Sentencing Commission had put out. and, that sort of had some vague recommendations that were along the lines of what um, the WEED group was discussing. um, and the vague recommendation was, we should reduce this disparity from a hundred-to-one to something less than that. and we should uh, try to take in_ uh would they concede that crack has more harms than cocaine, but they argued that uh, uh uh, the guidelines could, could account for the harms better. and in fact i thought that the interesting argument was that mandatory minimums had been passed in eighty-eight and then the guidelines came along_ i'm sorry the mandatory minimums in eighty-six, and then the guidelines came along in eighty-eight, and the guidelines actually counted things that were considered when the mandatory minimums were counted so that in effect you were punishing the same harm twice. um, so anyways they thought that it should go to a, more or less a complete guideline system. um, although they were a little bit vague about, how complete. whether or not it should be hundred_ how how much less it should be? should it be one-to-one should it be five-to-one or whatever, um, then in April, a couple months after this thing came out, uh, the Sentencing Commission voted, for a more specific recommendation and actually for a specific set of guidelines. and they voted, a split vote. it was four to three for a one-to-one ratio. um four people in favor of of one-to-one and four people, or i'm sorry three people who thought, it should be higher than one-to-one, um and then it goes to the Congress and the Congress has until November, if Congress does nothing that becomes law. um, Congress has to affirmatively reject that, um by November of that year and the pro- President has to sign Congress's bill, and, this had never before but the Congress did reject that recommendation they did reject the one-to-one ratio and the President on October thirty-first, signed the rejection so it, that was in fact rejected. and they told the Sentencing Commission to go back and revisit this, um, and to come up with you know <LAUGH> you know nice try come again basically. <LAUGH> what do you think happened? i mean what do you think happened? then then they released another report which, i have here, any predictions on, on how they came down on the second, iteration of this report? 
S4: wh- 
S5: the same way. 
S4: twenty-to-one ratio. 
S9: some kind of compromise, [S4: yeah ] fifty-to-one, [S1: yeah ] ten-to-one. 
S1: and uh, what was especially interesting is they, uh so they they tr- wanted to raise the, the leve- the amount that would trigger a mandatory minimum for crack, and so it was from, now it's at five uh grams and it became, their recommendation was between i think twenty-five and seventy-five grams. and they lowered, the amount for cocaine it's now at five hundred grams, and they r- they recommended that it be between i think a hundred and, twenty-five and two hundred and twenty-five something like that. so they brought the ratio closer together by both, being softer on crack and being harder on cocaine to try to, i guess diffuse that argument. um, 
S8: was that the original approach as well? like when they, their first proposal, when they proposed a one-to-one? 
S1: you mean in in s- the [S8: yeah. ] yeah, it it wasn't_ i i think they left it vague, to be honest. i mean i saw, um a little bit about what they said in their actual amendment um, in the one in April i talked about that the voted on, and it seemed to me that they left it vague. it just said a one-to-one and, there must be more, uh stuff that i haven't found that says exactly what they thought it should be but, as far as i could tell it was, it was a little bit vague. [SU-F: mhm ] um, but you know the problem seemed to be in that first, i mean what are the political issues, why do you think Congress rejected this? <LAUGH> i mean when they recommended one-to-one? 
S5: if they accepted it they'd be soft on drugs.
S1: yeah, i mean it's a, <LAUGH> it's a tough sell. so it was, once i mean once you have you know a, a strong penalty, it's very difficult to, to go down from there, um, politically. um, uh, so anyway i i mean i don't know it was all very interesting. and the thing is, so then in ninety-seven that just put out another one of these reports that was sort of a recommendation and not actually passing an amendment. a recommendation for it to, you know, be changed to roughly these ratios. um, and as far as i can tell, um and i actually asked a guy yesterday in the U-S Attorney's Office in Boston and i'll also ask him about Ally's question. <LAUGH> why haven't they prosecuted any whites for crack? um, you know what had happened to it, and he wasn't sure either as far as we can tell um, nothing has changed and they, again they recommended, um, uh you know this sort of compromise solution. and it apparently hasn't been implemented, um, and what happened with the Sentencing Commission is, um and seems to have a lot to do with this report it became very politicized. um, it's a seven member body and it gradually sort of eroded and right now, i think every position is vacant and if not every position there's like one or two people on it, but they don't have a quorum, so they can't, work anymore. there were a couple of years and i think that includes this April ninety-seven when this came out, it may have been a little bit after this, where they only had four members, which is the bare minimum you need and so everything they did had to be unanimous or else it, it it wouldn't apply. because, you know it's just been, held up, you know, allegedly because uh, they, i don't understand all the details but they ap- the Congress has to appoint people to the Commission and they do 'em in sort of groups and there's all this attempts at log rolling that just aren't working out because um, uh, you know, it's a very, crime policy is is a very political and emotional issue um, and they haven't been able to_ right now the, the Commission is non functioning essentially so. sort of interesting. and they were, i mean we read the history in there of the Commission a little bit. they, were formed in the early eighties does anybody know exactly when? a- and for years and years you know they, made recommendations and Congress had never, overturned them. until, this report, um, and the the vote that came after it. 
S9: were they always, were they always harder on drugs every time, or?
S1: yeah they i mean they were, pretty hard on drugs i think, um, 
S9: i mean it was always increased sentencing kind of, [S1: yeah i'm not m- ] until this one probably. 
S1: yeah i'm not sure if they'd ever tried to, lower a penalty before [S9: yeah ] i don't know they 'd ever actually revisited drug. cuz they don't just do drug sentencing [S9: right. ] they also do stuff about fraud and everything else. [S9: okay. ] i don't if they'd ever_ that's a good question, if they'd ever, um even address the issue of, um drug penalties before i don't know if anybody else here, knows anything about it, um, but if you're interested in the second report it's very short it's not the monster this other one was. um, there's actually, oh in this one, i can't remember. no, it wa- it was a it was a unanimous opinion recommending the, compromise but there were sort of concurring opinions so they sort of disagreed about some of the rhetoric and, and so there was this, you know ten page opinion and five page concurring opinion and if you're interested in looking it up, um, the web page is um, U-S-S-C dot U-S Sentencing Commission dot GOV, and there's a, little section called reports where you can look 'em all up, um, and it also has some of the other background too, like uh, uh, you know statements that were made to the Congress by a Sentencing Committee minutes of their meeting stuff like so it's sort of an interesting little, little archive of stuff. um, there were some things in, readings that i wanted to cover, but i guess we're, close to out of time and it probably doesn't make sense to start a new, topic did anybody have any general, thoughts on the subject and the readings or anything that you wanted to, chat about for a couple of minutes or? 
S9: i think most of it kinda came out in the discussion.
S1: yeah, i think.
S9: a- all the issues that i, that i remembered from the reading.
S1: okay. i mean the- ther- there was, i mean yeah the big, you know, the big issues had to do with this idea of you know, harm. i mean the idea that cocaine has more, harmful effects than than other drugs and_ i'm sorry crack does and that's why it's punished more severely, but then the question is uh, do, are there other ways of getting at that that um, you know, that don't have all the other costs that we talked about. yeah Justin?
S4: yeah, just the one s- reading, that i thought, were, well the Body Count, the stuff from body count. like about how like everybody is going to prison or like, really serious violent offenders who, you know you've got those horror stories interspersed throughout, i just thought it was, it's interesting i wondered how, cuz you know they talk about prior conviction, sometimes they say specifically violent offenses but it's not always clear what the prior convictions were. [S1: mhm mhm ] and i wondered, [S1: yeah ] you know, about s- what some of them were i kinda questioned some of the figures but overall it was pretty, you know it was kind of a different, [S1: yeah. ] something i hadn't s- seen or read in, you know in a while.
S1: yeah, and h- William Bennett you know who, he is? do people know who, William Bennett is? he was the, he's very you know sort of, intellectual conservative figure who um was, i guess education secretary under, [SU-8: mhm ] uh Reagan [SU-7: mhm ] is that right? and then he became the drug czar for, for Bush. um, and then he co-wrote that with, our friend John DiIulio and um, some third guy that, i don't know <LAUGH> um, but yeah that was uh, uh, this has i mean this has been a theme for a b- certain you know group of people that um as they put it there that you know when everybody says there's all these people in in in federal prison for drug offenses, um that's misleading because uh, the drug offenses simply as they put it they're latest uh, grade in plea bargaining one-oh-one. and that in fact, the drug offense is an indicator of a, torrid history of uh, of of serious criminality. and and so that these people are in fact culpable much more culpable than it looks like when you say oh they were, in jail for a gram of crack but in fact they'd been, you know a menace to society for years before that's their argument and the question is whether we, believe it or not. um, yeah Ally 
S7: wasn't, wasn't that article significantly older than a lot of the other ones? i mean that was thing that i, sort of questioned cuz it was like from nineteen seventy-six.
S1: oh no the Bennett one?
S7: yeah that wasn't the (Bennett one) 
S1: no, that was that was from the nineties, [S7: was it? okay. ] it was from the nineties yeah, that was ninety-five, i think 
S7: okay, cuz one of 'em. 
S4: and the other the other thing about that is when they talk about releasing all these people early a lot of, what i have read, suggests anyway that, we're having to release people early because of over crowding because [S1: mhm ] of, like a lot of the types of offenders we're now admitting, to, [S1: right ] you know that are not maybe as dangerous as though who we're, letting out, so i i was sorta confused, and i didn't how, how much cre- credence to give it basically. 
S1: yeah, yeah, i mean i thought they're, i mean, you know they make some some, i mean they have a uh, i think a uh, i think a perspective that's important to think about, but that they're a little sloppier than some of 'em um i thought um, like the, you know the contradiction the main contradiction i saw in there is first they're saying how, were not punitive these days, um, and our evidence of this is that the ratio of, uh, people in priso- people incarcerated to uh, crimes committed is very very low. um, but then later on they go on to say, how uh, uh, you know each criminal commits dozens of crimes, well then the the the, i mean you have to factor that into the ratio of crimes to criminal because crimes isn't the number, isn't the relevant denominator. the number of criminals is the relevant denominator, and you have to divide the number of crimes by, the rate of criminality, so that i mean i being a little bit babbling here but i think you get the general, sort of point that they were a little bit inconsistent um, uh, in along that dimension but anyway. but the argument that, um you know, people who are in jail for drugs are not in fact, you know, as they put it, you know misplaces angles this has been a powerful and important argument in these debates, so anyhow. uh, di- did people like reading through the the the Sentencing Commission's stuff? <SU-M LAUGH> was that helpful? [SU-M: interesting ] yeah, i think i think it focused this, session even more directly just on that issue would be, a good way to go but, alright. without further objections let's take off, um. 
S9: i was gonna make a real quick announcement. [S1: mkay ] uh, i was watching Nightline last night, don't ask me why i never watch it but with Ted Koppel. i think that's C-B-S [S2: A-B-C ] A-B-C? [S2: yeah. ] i was mentioning to Missy, um they did this, expose on kind of um, well not really an expose, but they, they tracked six women in a central California federal prison, um from, i guess the time of about, uh the last month of their imprisonment through kind of their release, and um, kind of tracked how many of them what they did after they were released, what kind of situation they were in, and then how many of them, went back. um so a lot of recidivism is- issues. it was it was very interesting and [S1: this was last night on? ] this was last night on Nightline and, um i only i only got like the last twenty minutes of it, and Missy, Missy was saying that they've been doing kind of intermittently they've been doing, a lot of prison kind of crime and incarceration topics, on that program in the last couple days or weeks or. 
S1: mhm.
S2: yeah, i know, i just i know that i, taped something last Tuesday, and i accidently ran the tape like through Nightline, which was about like man- minimums, [SS: yeah ] whether or not we should have like [S1: mhm ] federal minimums for prison, so i think and i think they've been doing 'em.
S9: so they might be doing a theme thing, so keep your eyes open. but it was a really very interesting, cuz it kinda put a, human face on all the stuff we're talking about.
S5: i think it was actually [S1: huh ] the second night in a row that they had talked about it, about women for example.
S9: they were doing Nightline, yeah, so 
S2: (xx) like when we were i was doing research to this last night, there this totally interesting website i don't know if any of you would be interested in it but i was, and i don't remember the thing but i could email it to you guys but that, was basically just every woman who's incarcerated in a federal prison for a drug offense it was like just a picture and sort of a bio, of like every single woman and, i mean they were really fair like some of them were like and she's been arrested like eight times already <LAUGH> you know like all these_ but they were, it was so interesting sort of i think to like, and just the enormity [SU-M: right. ] of like, just the nu- like the page just like goes down forever, and just the enorm- it was really interesting.
S1: huh, yeah interesting. yeah, i'll see if we can't, um, get a copy of those Nightlines. um, one quick announcement, there is, uh, i passed around this just uh, one sheet that has a sh- a very short article that's a little more positive about rehabilitation for next week, uh together with a table from something that was released, that describes how much different regions of the country spend on uh, treatment versus other things, so pick a copy up. 
S4: i think it would be interesting, um, like, when you do this class next, [S1: mhm ] it'd be interesting if you could like, find uh, an article that that, um, is maybe like a research article that talks about treatment programs or, [S1: mhm ] kinda some of the more demand, side interventions. [S1: treatment programs for drugs specifically? ] to see to see how effective they are. yeah [S1: yeah. ] yeah. like, you know, as a like treatment as opposed to the law enforcement. something that, [S1: mhm mhm ] cuz that was something that we were having trouble at finding. it would help our argument. 
S7: yeah, actually, a lot of the articles that Harry passed out, like early in the semester. [S1: uhuh uhuh ] were really useful, cuz they talk about a lot of the [S1: okay ] different stuff that was only, sort of briefly touched upon [S1: uhuh ] in the, in a lot of the readings they went into a little bit more depth. [S1: uhuh ] so, 
S1: yeah, that's a ide- cuz uh wi- the stuff that we did on rehabilitation when it lumps everything together that's a little bit unfair to the drug treatment stuff because it tends to work better than, the sort of behavior (xx) [S4: mhm ] so that would be probably a good idea to save some, directly about treatment stuff 
S7: right, yeah, right like a lotta the stuff in, the articles that Harry gave us, were really, pretty positive about, [S1: mhm ] the effects of drug treatment, so, as opposed to like the general view of (xx) <SS LAUGH> 
S8: yeah 
S1: but no, it it's true that drug treatment is, people are less, cynical about than, than other types of rehabilitation, [S8: yeah. ] and, you know, and the article, like, right here, is a little bit, um, uh, is pretty positive about rehabilitation in general.
S4: no no no, i was seeing if it was a Gore or a Bradley, or a Bush, cuz i know you.
S2: don't say that too loud.
S4: what, Bush? Bush.
S2: i hope, i was hoping to share a comment. i was hoping that your comment that, you know we should look at historical injustice to determine, like whether or not a policy is unjust. [S4: i know that was. i couldn't resist. ] i was hoping that didn't identify you as a flaming liberal. i was hoping that was just like, just well known. <LAUGH> i hope everybody agrees with that.
S4: no, but that's not what 
S1: well, but it's funny. i mean if you said that i mean, 
S8: yeah i know that if you're on the floor of Congress, i mean, whatever 
S2: right, i know, totally yeah
S4: i don't think there should be special treatment. there should be 
S8: yeah yeah 
S2: oh yeah. special treatment is so_ by the way, i nev- never talked about my paper. i have been so bad about that. [S1: oh right. yeah. (xx) ] i'm such a bad student about that. and, i already know, like i know what i'm doing and i've like started research i've just been bad. i don't know what my thing is. i just you know.
S1: well, yeah. we have, well, i mean you wanna chat briefly now. [S2: yeah ] and make sure it's you know, [S2: yeah, if it's working? ] the right general, i mean i don't care (about the) topic, but just to make sure you're [S2: going on ] (xx) policy (xx) 
S2: i think so. um i'm, [S1: what what was the? ] interested in looking at um how there've been a bunch of laws in different states that, restrict Native Americans from prosecuting non-Native Americans, [S1: mhm ] in, tribal courts [S1: mhm ] so there actually is a Supreme Court ruling about that. 
S1: so Native Americans cannot uhuh 
S2: that Native Americans cannot prosecute non-Native Americans, like for instance [S1: mhm ] if you were in a casino and you punched somebody [S1: mhm ] um, many tribes can prosecute you through the tribal court system, [S1: mhm ] but then_ that's why, you triggered it when you said special rights. [S1: mhm ] but um, but then there's been jur- legislation about whether or not, that's appropriate, [S1: uhuh ] whether or not, if you're non-Native American you shouldn't, that shouldn't be tried in a different court. and i was kinda interested in in [S1: mhm ] it, i kinda started reading about it. and so i think it kind of incorporates, a lot of the, you know, issues [S1: mhm ] of our_ well, first i started looking at it because i know that there's, that Native American tribal courts do a lot of shaming [S1: mhm ] they do a lot of reintegrative shaming [S1: uhuh uhuh ] and so that's what i was originally looking at then i kind of stumbled on this issue and i thought it kind of incorporated a lot of our issues of sort of our justice system, [S1: mhm ] you know, equity blah blah blah, um, in terms of theirs, [S1: mhm mhm ] and then it terms and then how you sort of, how culture and, [S1: mhm ] the status of a racial minority, how heavily is that weighed? does that matter does that not matter is that different? [S1: mhm mhm ] and so i'm kind of, sort of interesting in, researching, that's what i was kinda looking into.
S1: yeah, no that i mean that sounds that sounds good. it could be, i mean there's there's some big issues there about um you know, the, the, how, sovereign a nation an Indian nation really is, [S2: right ] um as and and all that. and and that is, directly, you know related to the criminal justice stuff in that there's some inequity stuff of if, you know there's, which form you wind up in, can can determine which sentence you are and that's always that always troubles people although it's not very different from, what we were talking about today, whether you end up in state court or federal court, and, is it a good predictor of what your sentence is, (like) for drugs. 
S2: yeah. except for i think that, yeah, it's pro- i just think that there's a lot of, there's huge fear [S1: mhm ] of, non-Native Americans ending up [S1: mhm ] in a Native American court system, just because the rules are, are different. [S1: yeah, uhuh uhuh ] and they are they have a 
S1: yeah. so, that would be interesting and to frame it the way you framed it at the beginning. [S2: yeah that's what i wa- ] is it is it a good idea to do it one way or the other, is is, i think exactly the right way to go about it. 
S2: right because i know that they like in, in like South Dakota and Florida, they've done it like two different ways and i actually, [S1: mhm ] do know that the Supreme Court has, str- strangely the Supreme Court's like upheld both of them [S1: mhm ] and they, they do weird stuff like that. <LAUGH> you know, and like upheld both of them at the same time as like being a model. so i was just sort of interesting in seeing, like what i would think [S1: mhm ] about, kinda like reading through and figuring out
S1: nah, that sounds that sounds really good, that sounds really interesting, just do it as a you know, what do you think what is the right way to go about it. it, it's what you wanna do. 
S2: yeah, trying to, you know, how_ because i mean i can, i guess i can sor- in some senses see the point of some of the people who say that you are, you're kinda disadvantaged, disadvantaged in the tribal system [S1: mhm ] just cuz it it it does play by different rules. [S1: uhuh ] i don't know how much that_ uh, it could matter i don't know, you know, and i don't know who the people are who are getting arrested (xx) 
S1: yeah, i guess the hard thing will be to, to separate out the specifically criminal justice issues from the much more anticriminal issues of, of the sovereignty, you know sovereignty of the (xx) nation um, but i don't mean, don't don't go into them and (xx) and then it gets, interesting (xx) 
{END OF TRANSCRIPT}

