May 24, 2005

SENSENBRENNER'S "SNITCH" BILL

Advocates aim to halt the harsh "Safe Access" Act
sensenbrenner2.jpg
C'mon, Sensenbrenner—start making sense.
Last week, AIDS Issues Update sent out an alert urging readers to tell their reps in U.S. Congress to oppose H.R.1528, the Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act, which stands a good chance of being voted out of committee and onto the floor of the House of Representatives. The bill, introduced by conservative congressman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), purports to protect children and people in drug treatment from drug pushers. "The need for this legislation is clear," says House judiciary committee press rep Jeff Lungren, a spokesperson for the bill. "Drug dealers are targeting those attempting to kick their habit."

But advocates for more progressive drug laws, such as Housing Works and the Drug Policy Alliance (www.drugpolicy.org), say the intent suggested by the bill's title will not be fulfilled by its harsh terms, such as its "snitch" provision, which imposes a two-year mandatory minimum sentence on anyone who fails to report within 24 hours certain drug-related offenses of family, friends and neighbors. It also imposes a five-year mandatory-minimum sentence on someone who, theoretically, asks a fellow patient in drug treatment if they can score them drugs—or who passes a marijuana joint at a party to someone who has been in drug treatment before.

In fact, say such advocates, the real intent of the bill is to strip judges of their discretionary power, locking in an even broader, harsher range of mandatory-minimum sentences than that which already exists. Sensenbrenner and the bill's other supporters "hate judges," says Drug Policy Alliance's Bill Piper. "They think the sentences they give out are too light. There's this backlash against judges among conservatives. They want to be tough on crime and throw people in jail." Piper said he supported the bill's stated aim of protecting young people from drugs but that a new array of mandatory minimums will not realize that goal.

Another major problem with the bill, which criminalizes even withholding information about various forms of drug distribution (not just sales), is that "there's no cut-off point," says Piper. "Even giving someone a joint" falls within the bill's punitive reach. Piper is also worried that the bill's provision against distributing drug-related paraphernalia will criminalize people who run HIV- and hepatitis-preventing needle-exchange programs (NEPs) in places where NEPs are not explicitly authorized by law. Under the bill, that would subject NEP operators to up to three years in prison. Indeed, says bill backer Lungren, "it is certainly possible that needles given to persons [to be used] to inject heroin may be covered" by the bill. Piper says he would like to see syringes excluded from the bill for harm-reduction purposes.

More to the point, Piper would like to see the whole bill tank, saying, "There's nothing good about" it. Lungren takes issue with that, saying, "Obviously, we disagree with our opponents...but unfortunately, we don't have time to correct [their] every mischaracterization. I have found opponents frequently purposely mislead reporters on legislation in order to tie up our members and staff with responses to their false claims."

"There's nothing good about this bill," says Piper, who worries it may threaten needle exchanges.
Indeed, says Piper, playing for time is a part of the strategy to defeat the bill, which, he says, Sensenbrenner is trying to push forward much more quickly this year than last, when the bill died shortly after leaving subcommittee due to a handful of Republicans who thought it was moving too fast and went too far. In particular, says Piper, they opposed a section of the bill that creates mandatory minimums for every federal crime, drug-related or not.

Piper says that the Sentencing Reform Working Group, an alliance of groups opposing such bills, will meet in D.C. this Wednesday (details below) to devise other approaches to sinking H.R. 1528. The group will likely enlist the support of Republicans reps who are concerned with different parts of it. Such GOPers include Jeff Flake (AZ), Dan Lundgren (CA), Louie Gohmert (TX) and Bob Ingliss (SC). From there, says Piper, "we'll try to get as much taken out of the bill in committee"—including, in his view, the three worst parts: the 24-hour snitch rule; across-the-board mandatory minimums; and the provision criminalizing one drug-treatment patient for asking another for drugs.

The other strategy? "To paint this bill as so extreme that the whole thing goes dead in the water," says Piper. "The more we make this bill look outrageous in the House, the greater the chances of stopping it in the Senate. We're hoping we can create enough stink to stop it."

The Sentencing Reform Working Group will meet this Wednesday, May 25, from 3pm-4pm at the Methodist Building in Room 108 (National Council of Churches conference) at 110 Maryland Ave., N.E., on Capitol Hill, across from the Supreme Court. Those outside D.C. can call in to the meeting on 1.888.234.4229 (punch-in 9066#).

For more information, contact Bill Piper at 202-216-0035 x 205 or bpiper@drugpolicy.org. For more on H.R. 1528, go to www.famm.org/si_federal_sentencing_sensenbrenner05.htm, on the website of Families Against Mandatory Minimums. AIDS Issues Update will urge a more targeted zap on H.R. 1528 when the time is right. Meanwhile, urge your lawmakers now, per the original zap, to oppose this extreme and punitive bill.



Email a link for this entry to a friend

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):