Below is a Huffington Post piece that Tony Newman, DPA's Media Relations director, wrote about the NYC Manhattan District Attorney's race. At the debate, two of the candidates made some rather revealing statements about past drug use. Tony has a great commentary about the hypocrisy of it all.

Candidates Drug Use Not A Deal Breaker, But Hypocrisy On Issue Should Be!

At Tuesday's debate in the race for Manhattan District Attorney, two of the three candidates admitted to cocaine use. When the candidates were asked if they used any illegal drugs besides marijuana, both Cy Vance and Richard Aborn admitted to trying cocaine in the past.

We seem to have come a long way from when Douglas Ginsberg was bumped from consideration for a Supreme Court position because he had tried marijuana in the 70's. Now it is almost impossible to find a presidential candidate who has not tried marijuana. It has become so commonplace for elected officials to admit marijuana use that the question has progressed to whether candidates have tried an illegal drug besides marijuana.

President Obama broke ground as a candidate when he wrote openly about not only using marijuana, but trying cocaine when he was in high-school. I can't remember a presidential candidate admitting to using a "hard drug". Obama's drug use clearly had no negative impact with voters. I believe his honesty helped him by humanizing him with both young voters and baby boomers. Voters appreciated some straight talk compared to President George Bush refusing to answer questions about his "youthful indiscretions" and Bill "I never inhaled" Clinton. Ironically, the candidate who suffered the most damage from Obama's past drug use was Hillary Clinton, when Bill Shaheen, Clinton's New Hampshire co-chair, had to step down after going after Obama for his past drug use.

Another high-level elected official who admitted to cocaine use and received a public shrug in response was Governor David Paterson, who admitted to cocaine use days after he became governor following Eliot Spitzer's resignation over having patronized a prostitute. Governor Paterson has recently taken heat for a range of reasons, but his cocaine use is notably not one of them.

Now we have two candidates running for District Attorney of Manhattan, one the of the most powerful law enforcement jobs in the country, admitting to cocaine use. I predict it will not be a major issue and it shouldn't be. The reason past cocaine use by Obama and Paterson and Vance and Aborn use has not been a huge problem for them is that they don't have hugely hypocritical political views on substance abuse. All four of these elected officials/candidates have advocated for alternatives to prison for low-level drug offenders. President Obama has stated he wants drugs to be treated more as a public health than a criminal justice issue. Governor Paterson worked for years to reform New York's draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws. Vance and Aborn both opposed the Rockefeller Drug Laws and Aborn is calling for a debate on decriminalizing marijuana.

The problem for voters is when there is hypocrisy. The reason the Spitzer prostitute scandal was so damaging is because he was actively prosecuting prostitution at the same time he was enjoying the services of prostitutes.

Hypocrisy is what bothers me. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is currently running for reelection. When asked years ago if he had smoked marijuana he said yes, and even added that he enjoyed it. Yet under Mayor Bloomberg, New York has the shameful distinction of being marijuana arrest capital of the world. Last year 40,000 New Yorkers were arrested and jailed on low-level pot possession charges. More people have been arrested on marijuana possession charges under Mayor Bloomberg than any elected official in history!

It is encouraging that past drug use by candidates and elected officials are being discussed more openly and voters are less judgmental. What we need now is for voters to punish elected officials who are willing to ruin other people's lives with arrest and incarceration for doing similar things in their lives.

Labels: marijuana, New York, Rockefeller Drug Law

I was pleased to hear some refreshing news come out of Montgomery County, Maryland last week - judges in two medical marijuana cases handed down light sentences to patients convicted on possession charges.

William York walked out of the courthouse with a $100 fine, and Winnie Gesumwa had her fine waived, due to Maryland's medical marijuana law, which caps the sentence for marijuana possession at a $100 fine if defendants can prove they use the drug for medical purposes.
While assuring, theses rulings have also drawn attention to the tremendous shortcomings of the Maryland law, particularly its ambiguity and lack of essential protections for patients and caregivers.

The Darrell Putman Compassionate Use Act does not require the state to maintain a registry of medical marijuana patients, a resource that would help keep people using the drug for medical purposes out of the criminal justice system. The law contains no safe access provision, so patients still have to buy marijuana off the street rather than from dispensaries. And if patients are prosecuted for possession, they have no recourse to seek refunds for legal fees.

Essentially, the law is useless to most of its intended beneficiaries.

Currently, the sentences meted out to Maryland's medical marijuana patients convicted on pot charges depend entirely on the legal representation available to them and the individual judges assigned to their cases. Those who've received fines have generally benefited from lawyers familiar with medical marijuana law and capable of mounting a trenchant argument that marijuana is a medical necessity for their clients. They've also been lucky enough to have their cases heard by judges willing to show leniency toward medical marijuana patients. Not all judges are, and lawyers knowledgeable about the Compassionate Use Act are hard to come by.

Without a law that clearly outlines protections for patients and caregivers, these inconsistencies in sentencing will continue, but the Maryland legislature has been maddeningly hesitant to improve the current law. Last year, legislators failed even to pass a bill that would have created a taskforce to assemble a set of best practices for medical marijuana law that could guide reforms in Maryland.

There's a good chance another taskforce bill will be introduced this fall, and I hope lawmakers will reconsider. It's a small step toward much needed reforms, but a step forward nonetheless. Maryland owes its medical marijuana patients a law with some substance.