Impact of the Drug War and Drug Policies on Youth, The Poor, and The Family

On August 5, 2009, local news station WSOC-TV 9 in Charlotte, NC reported that the FBI "startled" east Charlotte resident Rosie Lee Bright, who is currently undergoing treatment for cancer, on August 4 "when federal agents burst into her apartment searching for suspects in a drug trafficking ring" ("FBI Storms Wrong Home in East Charlotte"). Bright reports repeatedly asking officers "What happened, what happened, and they said it was a drug bust." However, the "only drugs [Bright] had in [her] apartment [...] were to help with her breast cancer treatments."

Bright immediately recognized the raid as "a case of mistaken identity," but police remained unaware of their blunder until after they "ordered her to lie on the floor and handcuffed her." As the article states, "Agents later learned that the suspects they were looking for were actually in the apartment next door;" a raid on the correct apartment netted the arrests of "two men who [the FBI agents] said are part of a heroin trafficking ring that's been operating" in two North Carolina counties. An FBI spokesperson told the news outlet "that the mix-up appears to have been an honest mistake," and the agents "apologized and offered to pay any medical bills [Bright] might have because of the raid" upon learning of their mistake, the victim said.

Although these FBI agents, along with a growing number of their law enforcement colleagues, probably need to take a couple of courses in math (or number recognition) and geography (or apartment building navigation), they don't appear to need etiquette lessons. An apology - though called for - does not suffice when armed federal agents storm into an innocent person's home and force its resident (especially when she is currently going through treatment for breast cancer) to lie handcuffed on the ground because trained FBI employees couldn't correctly identify a number on an apartment door, the agents at least acknowledged their mistake, recognized that their treatment of her was rough enough that the victim may have sustained injuries, and attempted to make up for their wrongdoing by compensating Bright for any damage they may have caused. It's a sad day in America when this has to be said, but at least the officers kept their weapons in their holsters this time.

Click on the article link above to watch a video interview with Bright courtesy of WSOC-TV 9.

A former student in Arizona's impoverished Safford Unified School District felt, quite rightly, that school administrators violated her constitutional protections when they strip-searched her in search of prescription-strength ibuprofen in 2003. She thus filed, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union's Drug Law Reform Project, a lawsuit against the school district, which she ultimately won in a near-unanimous 8-1 Supreme Court decision handed down June 25, 2009, a same day post on the ACLU's Blog of Rights, penned partially by Savana herself, states.

Redding, who was just 13 when the search was conducted (she is now 19 and attending Eastern Arizona College), claimed that school officials trampled upon her right to privacy when they ordered her to not only strip "to her underwear" but also, as she states in a New York Times article by Adam Liptak ("Strip-Search Case Tests How Far Schools Can Go"), "pull out my bra and move it from side to side [...]. They made me open my legs and pull out my underwear." Redding contends that she was humiliated by the strip search, though school nurse Peggy Schwallier, one of two female administrators who conducted the search on the order of assistant principal Kerry Wilson, claims that the student "never appeared apprehensive or embarrased;" Redding, however, "said she had kept her head down so the women could not see that she was about to cry." Additionally, Redding studied at home "for months after the search" and eventually transferred to another school. As she told Liptak, "I never wanted to see the secretary or the nurse ever again."

The extent of the search looks particularly eggregious when viewed in conjunction with both the substance Redding was accused of possessing (one prescription strength ibuprofen equivocates to about two over-the-counter Advils) and the evidence on which school officials based their suspicions. As Liptak writes, "In a friend-of-the-court brief in Ms. Redding's case, the federal government said the search [...] was unreasonable because officials had no reason to believe that she was 'carrying the pills inside her undergarments, attached to her nude body, or anywhere else that a strip search would reveal." Adam Wolf, Redding's ACLU attorney, concurred. In fact, he and Redding went sligtly further, contending that the initial evidence that prompted the search was tainted, based as it was "on a classmate's uncorroborated accusation" after the classmate herself was found in possession of the same type of pills, according the ACLU's blog post. Lawyers for the Safford Unified School District, on the other hand, argued that the search was "not excessively intrusive in light of Redding's age and sex and the nature of her suspected infraction." To support their assertion, the attorneys cited "data from the Office of National Drug Control Policy" concerning a reported rise in "[a]buse of prescription and over-the-counter drugs [...] among 12- and 13-year-olds." They even attempted to besmirch Redding's character; when the student claimed that "They didn't even look at my records [and see that] I was a good kid," the district dismissed Redding's charge, stating that her "assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules [...] only that she was never caught."

Fortunately for parents, students, and defenders of the Fourth Amendment across the nation, the Supreme Court found the school district's defense inadequate and ruled in Redding's favor. However, the Justices based their ruling primarily on the merits of the Redding defense's case and, as Redding writes in her statement for the ACLU's blog, "didn't go so far" as to ban "all strip search[es of] kids," which she would have preferred. Still, the Supreme Court "did rule that my constitutional rights were violated," Redding said. As now-retired Justice Souder, writing for the majority, put it "Because there were no reasons to suspect that the drugs presented a danger or were concealed in her underwear, we hold that the search did violate the Constitution" ("SAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST #1 v. REDDING).

To find out more about this gross violation of the teenaged Redding's civil liberties, follow the above links. Additionally, all legal documents pertaining to the case are available in the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project's Legal Documents archive.

Tulia Injustice Memorialized in Feature Film

Readers who followed the now six-year-old case of racial profiling, informant misuse, and official corruption in Tulia, Texas have one more reason to declare victory: in April of 2009, a feature-length film based on the incident, American Violet, opened in theatres across the country; the film not only serves as a fictionalized historical documentation of the injustice served upon residents of a Tulia housing project but also shines a national spotlight on drug war racism and corruption, bringing these issues out of the shadows and into the national consciousness.

The film is directed by Bill Haney (in conjunction with his production partner, Tim Disney), who heard about the story while "driving home during rush hour [listening] to National Public Radio." The director told the Los Angeles Times that he "began to cry" when he heard the story of "Regina Kelly, a young African American woman -- a single mother with four daughters -- [...] who was unjustly arrested during a raid on the projects where she lived" and erroniously "accused of dealing drugs" ("American Violet"). That "[t]he district attorney gave her the option of either a plea deal" - which would saddle her with a criminal record, barr her from voting, and cause her to "lose most of her rights" - or going to jail for 25 years" particularly upset Haney, who called the DA's offer a "Sophie's Choice." Departing from their usual documentary mode, Haney and Disney decided to make the case into "a dramatic feature," and they thus fictionalized some aspects of the story (such as Kelly's name, which was changed to Dee Roberts) while remaining true to the basic facts of the case. The filmmakers explained that they "thought doing the film as a feature would have more universal resonance with audiences" and, as Haney told the Times, "affect more people's views."

American Violet chronicles Kelly's tough but eventually victourious legal battle with District Attorney John Paschall, in which the ACLU's Drug Law Reform Project participated. Haney not only reviewed the group's relevant legal documents, which readers can view for themselves by searching the Project's document archive, but also "went to Texas and spent a lot of time with Kelly, her children, and the attorneys, filming long interviews with them." Haney reports that he "always felt a great responsibility to the story" as well as to Kelly herself, with whom he maintains contact. The resulting cinematic document thus portrays Kelly's ordeal empathetically and passionately, never forgetting to ensure that viewers remain aware of the personal biases that law enforcement officials bring to their jobs; the structural inequities imbedded in the criminal justice system; and the plight of the poor, racially marginalized citizens who bare the brunt of the drug war's collateral consequences. However, the film is engaging enough to avoid being overly didactic.

If drug policy and criminal justice reform activists want to inform those to whom the harms of prohibition are less obvious, American Violet provides an interesting test case in doing so through popular cultural representations and will hopefully be replicated by similarly motivated filmmakers in the future. To learn more about the film, visit its official web site; you can also become a fan of the film on Facebook.

Back to top

As the Drug War Chronicle reported on March 20, 2009 ("Bills to Require Drug Testing for Welfare, Unemployment Pop Up Around Country"), "In Arizona, Hawaii, Missouri, and Oklahoma, bills have been filed that would force people seeking public assistance to undergo random drug tests and forgo benefits if they test positive" for drug use. Additionally, a Florida bill proposes testing for "people who receive unemployment compensation," and West Virginian legislators targeted both groups, though, according to an April 4 report by the Chronicle, that bill was defeated in the state's House ("Widely Publicized West Virginia Bill to Test People on Public Assistance Dies"). However, the Kansas House went so far as to pass such a bill - a relatively rare move considering the massive amount of similar proposals that die in state committees annually.

Many bills languish in legislatures due to "cost concerns," constitutional issues, and other "practical or operational issues." Even when Michigan "passed a welfare drug testing law in 1999," which "required all Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) applicants to provide urine samples to be considered eligible for assistance," the program was eventually ruled unconstitutional; "the US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier district ruling that the blanket, suspicionless testing of recipients violated the Fourth Amendment's proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures." Moreover, welfare and other related kinds of drug testing "ha[ve] also been rejected by a broad cross-spectrum of organizations concerned with public health, welfare rights, and drug reform." Michigan state chair for the National Welfare Rights Organization responded "incredulous[ly]" when asked for comment by the Chronicle, and West Virginia ACLU employee Frank Crabtree called the policies "really bad." He continued, "These are the most vulnerable people in our society, and their children are even more vulnerable. These are people of who the legislature has no fear. They have to deal with the problems of daily life to such a degree that they are not as politcally active, and that makes this bill just seem like a bullying tactic."

When 23-year-old Rachel Hoffman, a "social drug dealer" in Tallahassee, FL, was arrested on possession and intent to distribute charges in 2008, police convinced her that she could avoid jail time and a criminal record if she moved over to their side and acted as a snitch. However, she surely never suspected that when she "went off to do a controlled buy of guns and cocaine" - commodities with which she was not intimately familiar - "[h]er police handlers" would "los[e] contact with her" until they found her body "two days later." As the Drug War Chronicle states ("Fall-Out Continues in the Case of Murdered Informant Rachel Hoffman"), Hoffman was a victim of a relatively recently "developed [law enforcement] system that relies on 'flipping' people arrested on drug charges -- getting them to agree to become informants in hopes of seeing their own charges reduced."

Now, Hoffman's parents are trying to change that system with both a lawsuit against Tallahassee police and, even better, a bill in the state's legislature, sponsored by Sen. Mike Fasano (R-New Port Richie). The proposal, dubbed "Rachel's Law," hopes "to tighten the standards for using young people as snitches." As Fasano stated, "We've got to do our best in working with law enforcement to protect young people like that ... who don't realize what they're getting themselves into."

Local police sell the campaign as a way to tap the citizen's desire to get involved to stop crime and drugs. According to the Herald Express July 31, 2008 article,("We Need You In The War On Drugs") "They want to harness the help of the public to catch the 'vile dealers in drugs' whose activities are directly linked to the majority of dwelling burglaries and vehicle crime across the Bay. A similar enterprise in Plymouth, launched late last year, has already been hailed a major success. Officers behind the Bay initiative are hoping to celebrate the same crime-busting results from the community."

The article adds, "Police are actively encouraging residents to 'grass up' anyone they suspect of involvement in the illicit drugs trade, much of which they say is financed by the proceeds of crimes that impact most on the community, particularly thefts from cars and homes. Supt Singer said: 'People should have no qualms against reporting those who make their living out of other people's misery. 'This is a worthy campaign which we hope will further strengthen the sense of pride in the community which the Bay already enjoys."

The article adds, "His comments are endorsed by Bob Widdecombe, chairman of Devon and Cornwall Crimestoppers Trust, who said: 'We want to know where the drugs are coming from, who is using them and who is selling them. 'Plymouth has shown the campaign does work because lots of information has come through and arrests have been made. We want that duplicated in Torbay.' The campaign will include a number of publicity posters appearing at key sites around the Bay."

The Government Accountability Office released a report on Oct. 10, 2007 ("Residential Treatment Programs: Concerns Regarding Abuse and Death in Certain Programs for Troubled Youth") examining thousands of allegations of abuse at residential treatment programs for youth around the US. The report provides horrific detail of a number of specific cases including several deaths.

According to the report, "GAO found thousands of allegations of abuse, some of which involved death, at residential treatment programs across the country and in American-owned and American-operated facilities abroad between the years 1990 and 2007.Allegations included reports of abuse and death recorded by state agencies and the Department of Health and Human Services, allegations detailed in pending civil and criminal trials with hundreds of plaintiffs, and claims of abuse and death that were posted on the Internet. For example, during 2005 alone, 33 states reported 1,619 staff members involved in incidents of abuse in residential programs."

The report also notes that "GAO also examined, in greater detail, 10 closed civil or criminal cases from 1990 through 2004 where a teenager died while enrolled in a private program. GAO found significant evidence of ineffective management in most of the 10 cases, with program leaders neglecting the needs of program participants and staff. This ineffective management compounded the negative consequences of (and sometimes directly resulted in) the hiring of untrained staff; a lack of adequate nourishment; and reckless or negligent operating practices,including a lack of adequate equipment."

The report, "Residential Treatment Programs: Concerns Regarding Abuse and Death in Certain Programs for Troubled Youth," is available from the GAO website.

New Jersey Board Of Education Considers Tightening Rules On Student Drug Testing

The New Jersey Board of Education is considering adopting rules which would require schools to use state-certified labs for student drug testing programs rather than leaving these tests in the hands of a school nurse. The Herald News reported on July 19, 2007 ("Schools Warn NJ Rules Could End Drug Testing") that "Drug testing rules proposed by the state Board of Education would make it harder and more costly for districts to randomly test students, local and White House officials testified Wednesday in Trenton. The rules would not require districts to test students, but would stipulate that those that do screen teenagers must conduct and analyze the tests at state-licensed laboratories, or become state-licensed labs themselves. Any costs associated with drug testing would fall to the district. Currently, most of the 20 districts in the state that screen students rely on school nurses to conduct and analyze the tests. Results that aren't clearly negative are sent to a lab for further evaluation."

According to the Herald News, "The proposal covers only students in Grades 9-12. It would not preclude testing of younger students, nor would it impose restrictions on how their specimens are collected or analyzed, said Susan Martz, director of educational support services for the state Education Department. The Department of Education proposed the rules at the behest of the Legislature, which maintains that random drug testing may dissuade students from using drugs. 'The issue for us is whether schools are really affording kids the protection they need,' said Martz. 'We have to balance that against whether the regulations impose undue burdens on the districts.' Though less than 10 percent of the state's high school districts randomly test their students, the figure has been steadily rising since 2002, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that schools could test students as long as it didn't interfere with a student's right to academic instruction."

The Herald News noted that "If tests are positive, parents are notified but police are not. Those students are barred from school activities until they receive counseling and pass a subsequent test. Roseanne Scotti, director of the Drug Policy Alliance of New Jersey, was the only speaker to testify in favor of the proposed regulations. 'These policies and procedures are critical to ensuring that the random drug testing that is done in our schools is of the highest quality and the least prone to errors that might cause false positives or false negatives.' According to the 2005 New Jersey Student Health Survey, 79 percent of students have consumed alcohol and 36 percent have tried marijuana. In the 30 days prior to the survey, 46 percent of students drank alcohol and 20 percent used marijuana."

US Conference On Mayors Adopts Anti-Drug War Resolution, Calls For "New Bottom Line"

The US Conference of Mayors held its 75th annual meeting June 22-26, 2007 in Los Angeles, CA. One of the resolutions they adopted at the conference urges an end to the status quo "war on drugs" and calls for a "New Bottom Line" in US drug policy.

The drug war resolution runs from page 47 through page 50 of the resolution packet. The major text of the resolution is as follows:

"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the United States Conference of Mayors believes the war on drugs has failed and calls for a New Bottom Line in U.S. drug policy, a public health approach that concentrates more fully on reducing the negative consequences associated with drug abuse, while ensuring that our policies do not exacerbate these problems or create new social problems of their own; establishes quantifiable, short- and long-term objectives for drug policy; saves taxpayer money; and holds state and federal agencies accountable; and

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that U.S. policy should not be measured solely on drug use levels or number of people imprisoned, but rather on the amount of drug-related harm reduced. At a minimum, this includes: reducing drug overdose fatalities, the spread of HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis, the number of nonviolent drug law offenders behind bars, and the racial disparities created or exacerbated by the criminal justice system; and

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that short- and long-term goals should be set for reducing the problems associated with both drugs and the war on drugs; and federal, state, and local drug agencies should be judged – and funded – according to their ability to meet specific performance indicators, with targets linked to local conditions. A greater percentage of drug war funding should be spent evaluating the efficacy of various strategies for reducing drug related-harm; and

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a wide range of effective drug abuse treatment options and supporting services must be made available to all who need them, including: greater access to methadone and other maintenance therapies; specially-tailored, integrated services for families, minorities, rural communities and individuals suffering from co-occurring disorders; and effective, community-based drug treatment and other alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent drug law offenders, policies that reduce public spending while improving public safety; and

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Conference supports preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis and other infectious diseases by eliminating the federal ban on funding of sterile syringe exchange programs and encourages the adoption of local overdose prevention strategies to reduce the harms of drug abuse; and

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the impact of drug use and drug policies is most acutely felt on the local communities, and therefore local needs and priorities of drug policy can be best identified, implemented and assessed at the local level. A successful national strategy to reduce substance abuse and related harms must invest in the health of our cities and give cities, counties, and states the flexibility they need to find the most effective way to deal with drugs, save taxpayer dollars and keep their communities safe."

Court Says No Bong Hits For Jesus

The US Supreme Court ruled against student free speech in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case. The Juneau Empire reported on June 26, 2007 ("'Bong Hits' Ruling Sides With District") that "In a 5-4 decision, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that former Juneau-Douglas High School Principal Deborah Morse was within her rights to suspend a student and suppress a banner that said 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus.' Any message 'perceived to promote drugs will be determined to be controlled speech,' Morse said in a teleconference after the decision. 'It will be illegal.' 'This case eliminates the confusion over whether the First Amendment permits regulation of student speech when such speech is advocating or making light of illegal substances,' school Superintendent Peggy Cowan said. Doug Mertz, the Juneau attorney who argued the case of former student Joseph Frederick, said the court allowed a free-speech issue to be turned into a drug debate. 'This is an extremely dangerous precedent,' Mertz said. 'This is the first time a subject matter is outside the protection of the First Amendment.'"

In spite of the ruling there is still hope for free speech in Alaska. According to the Empire, "Mertz said he and Frederick would confer about a final option, referring the case to the Alaska Supreme Court. 'We are going to look at it very closely,' Mertz said. 'We believe the state constitution offers greater protection.' Mertz said the decision to seek the state's high court opinion rests primarily with his client. Frederick was flying home from China when the decision was handed down."

The Empire noted that "The court's dissenters said the decision in Morse v. Frederick amounted to discrimination against specific viewpoints. 'The court does serious violence to the First Amendment in upholding -- indeed, lauding -- a school's decision to punish ( a student ) for expressing a view with which it disagreed,' Justice John Paul Stevens wrote. 'The court's ruling ... creates a drug exception to the First Amendment,' said Steven Shapiro, national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union. The case was one of the most closely watched school free-speech cases since 1969, when the Supreme Court ruled that Iowa high school student Mary Beth Tinker could wear a black armband opposing the Vietnam War. Now a nurse practitioner in St. Louis, Tinker was in the courtroom during the March 19 oral argument in the 'Bong Hits' case."

Update: Teachers In Hawaii To Face Random Urine Drug Testing

Teachers in Hawaii narrowly approved a new contract which included a provision requiring them to face random urine drug testing. The publication Education Weekly for May 9, 2007 reported ("Hawaii Teachers Face Random Drug Tests") that "The Hawaii State Teachers Association has ratified a new contract that will require its members to undergo random drug and alcohol testing--a requirement unusual for public school teachers--as the price for receiving a 4 percent salary increase each year over the next two years. The plan was tentatively approved on April 20 by the state and by leaders of the 13,000-member union, and was endorsed by 61.3 percent of members who took part in a ratification vote, the results of which were announced May 2. According to the contract, the union and the state education department will work together to develop the drug-testing program, which must be in place by the end of June 2008. The testing would be conducted by an independent lab, and principals would not be allowed to choose who is tested or see the results."

According to Education Weekly, "Greg Knudsen, a spokesman for the 181,000-student statewide district, said that even though the department was already working with the union to develop a 'reasonable suspicion' drug testing policy, that doesn't imply that officials think drug abuse is a widespread problem among teachers. 'The department didn't initiate it,' he said about the random testing proposal. United Public Workers, a separate 12,000-member union in the state that includes school cafeteria workers and custodians, had already ratified a contract that includes a random drug testing provision. But Roger Takabayashi, the president of HSTA, said his members 'feel disrespected' by the way in which the testing provision was tied to the pay raise, which brings a starting teacher's salary in the state to $43,157 a year, from $39,901. 'It was a tremendous blow,' he said. 'It's really a slap in the face.'"

The Weekly noted that "Observers said they would not be surprised if the new program ends up in court. 'I think this is a lawsuit waiting to happen,' said Julia Koppich, a San Francisco-based author and expert on teacher's unions. 'Someone is going to say 'You don't get to drug test me without probable cause.' '"

Teachers In Hawaii Object To Drug Testing Requirement In New Contracts

Teachers in Hawaii are objecting to a drug test requirement which has been inserted into their new contracts. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin reported on April 24, 2007 ("Teachers Call Drug Tests A Deal-Breaker For State") that "Public school teachers questioning why drug testing was included in their new contract are being told the state made the item a 'non-negotiable demand.' A video posted on the Hawaii State Teachers Association's Web site says the state made drug testing a prerequisite to settle a contract giving about 13,000 teachers 4 percent raises in each of the next two years. On Wednesday, HSTA President Roger Takabayashi was the only member of the union's board of directors to vote against sending the contract for ratification. Twenty-six members backed the contract and one abstained."

According to the Star-Bulletin, "If the teachers union had objected to drug testing, the state would not have agreed to a tentative contract offering some 13,000 teachers 4 percent raises in each of the next two years and other benefits, according to a video posted on the HSTA Web site. The video answers 16 questions about the contract, two of which deal with the proposed test by asking, 'How did random drug testing become a bargaining issue?' and, 'How are you going to protect teachers' rights under random drug testing?' In the video, Lilian Yamasaki, chairwoman of the negotiations committee for the union, said removing the drug-testing provision was not an option. 'The employer made this a non-negotiable demand,' she said. 'In order to get a pay raise and the other items, random drug testing had to be part of the collective bargaining agreement.'"

The Star-Bulletin noted that "It is unclear how teachers would be tested for drugs. The contract requires the testing to start by the 2008-09 school year. The Department of Education currently tests about 30 bus drivers and 25 physical therapists who work with deaf and blind students, as well as a few auto mechanics instructors, said spokesman Greg Knudsen. While the urine tests cost about $35 each, he said it is a minimal cost to a department that hires as many as 50,000 workers. 'It is not even a significant cost at this point,' Knudsen said, 'but it would be when applied to a base of 13,000 teachers.' Carl Linden, scientific director for Diagnostic Laboratory Services Inc., which tested Honolulu police officers for drugs until last year, said companies often test between 15 percent and 20 percent of their work force. To meet that mark, the department would have to test about 2,600 teachers annually, which could cost taxpayers about $91,000. Teachers will vote on the contract Thursday afternoon. If the vote fails, the union likely will miss a legislative deadline to submit the contract to lawmakers to fund pay raises, and the HSTA would have to go back to the bargaining table with the state."

Bong Hits At The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court heard arguments in a free speech case which has become known as 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus'. Concerns have arisen that the Court may create a 'drug exception to students' First Amendment rights.' The Christian Science Monitor reported on March 19, 2007 ("Student Free Speech vs School Drug Policy") that "A dispute over a student prank near a high school in Juneau, Alaska, is raising constitutional questions about student free speech and whether school officials can be sued for damages when they take action to muzzle a teenager's attempt at humor. On Monday, the US Supreme Court takes up a case involving a student-displayed banner that proclaimed: 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus.' At issue is whether a high school principal violated the free-speech rights of a student in 2002 when she confiscated the banner and suspended the student for 10 days after he and others unfurled the sign in front of much of the student body and local television cameras. The principal's action was upheld by the school superintendent, the Juneau School Board, and a federal judge. But a three-judge panel of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the federal judge, ruling that the principal could be sued personally for money damages for violating the student's clearly established free-speech rights."

According to the Monitor, "The case revolves around an incident that took place in January 2002 when the Olympic torch relay passed through Juneau on its way to Salt Lake City for the Winter Olympics. The torch was set to be carried down Glacier Avenue in front of the high school. School officials allowed students to assemble in front of the school to watch the event. As the torch and television cameras approached, Frederick and nine other individuals standing across the street from the school unfurled the banner, which was 14 feet in length. The banner was meant as a meaningless and humorous phrase that might attract the attention of the TV cameras covering the relay, Mertz says. It was a joke, not an advertisement urging students to use illicit drugs, the lawyer says in his brief. But if it were just a joke, the principal wasn't laughing. She crossed the street and confronted those holding the banner. Frederick refused to take it down, saying he had a First Amendment right to display the banner since he was across the street and off school grounds. Frederick says he told the school administrator that Thomas Jefferson once said that free speech can't 'be limited without being lost.' The principal confiscated the banner and suspended Frederick from school for 10 days."

The Court heard the case on March 19. The New York Times reported on March 20, 2007 ("Court Probes Student Free Speech Limits") that "Kenneth W. Starr had a strategy for convincing the Supreme Court that an Alaska high school principal and school board did not violate a student's free-speech rights by punishing him for displaying the words 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' on a 14-foot-long banner across the street from school as the 2002 Olympic torch parade went by. 'Illegal drugs and the glorification of the drug culture are profoundly serious problems for our nation,' Mr. Starr, a former solicitor general, told the justices in the opening moments of his argument on Monday. In other words, his approach was to present the free-speech case as a drug case and argue that whatever rights students may have under the First Amendment to express themselves, speaking in oblique or even in arguably humorous dissent from a school's official antidrug message is not one of them. That was Mr. Starr's story, and he stuck with it, through a series of hypothetical questions from the justices and on into a one-minute rebuttal at the end of the lively hour. While Mr. Starr may not prevail on the full breadth of his argument, his strategy appeared on the verge of succeeding well enough to shield his clients, the Juneau School Board and Deborah Morse, the high school principal, from having to pay damages to the student, Joseph Frederick. A majority of the court seemed willing to create what would amount to a drug exception to students' First Amendment rights, much as the court has in recent years permitted widespread drug testing of students, even those not personally suspected of using drugs, under a relaxed view of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches."

According to the Times, "One issue in this case, Morse v. Frederick, No. 06-278, was the nature of the event at which the student unfurled his provocative banner. Edwin S. Kneedler, a deputy solicitor general who shared Mr. Starr's argument time and presented the Bush administration's position in support of the school, said the torch event was the equivalent of a school assembly, with students attending under their teachers' supervision and under the school's jurisdiction. Mr. Mertz said it was basically a public event in a public place. In that context, he argued, the sign was not disruptive. The distinction matters, because under the Tinker precedent, student speech can lose its protected status if it is unduly disruptive. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy took issue with Mr. Mertz's characterization of the display as not being disruptive. 'It was completely disruptive of the message, of the theme that the school wanted to promote,' Justice Kennedy said, adding: 'Completely disruptive of the reason for letting the students out to begin with. Completely disruptive of the school's image that they wanted to portray in sponsoring the Olympics.' As in many other cases, Justice Kennedy's vote may prove crucial to the outcome. This case presents a particular challenge for him. While he is perhaps the most speech-protective of the justices, he is also highly pro-government on issues involving illegal drugs. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked a series of questions suggesting that his sympathies lay with the student rather than the school. That would be consistent with a decision he wrote six years ago as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that struck down a Pennsylvania school district's speech code. In that case, Saxe v. State College Area School District, Judge Alito said the policy 'strikes at the heart of moral and political discourse -- the lifeblood of constitutional self-government ( and democratic education ) and the core concern of the First Amendment.' His opinion was based on an interpretation of the Tinker precedent that was notably more robust than that put forward on Monday by Mr. Starr and Mr. Kneedler and, seemingly, by Chief Justice Roberts. During the argument, Justice Alito interrupted Mr. Kneedler as the deputy solicitor general was asserting that a school 'does not have to tolerate a message that is inconsistent' with is basic educational mission. 'I find that a very, very disturbing argument,' Justice Alito said, 'because schools have defined their educational mission so broadly that they can suppress all sorts of political speech and speech expressing fundamental values of the students under the banner of getting rid of speech that's inconsistent with educational missions.' In response, Mr. Kneedler said that for that reason, 'it would make a lot of sense' for the court to issue a narrow ruling limited to student advocacy of illegal conduct in general or drug use in particular."

Idaho State Senate Narrowly Approves Legislation To Imprison Pregnant Women For Drug Use

Legislation to punish women for using drugs while pregnant narrowly passed the Idaho Senate at the end of February. The Idaho State Journal reported on March 1, 2006 ( "'Meth-Mom' Bill Clears Senate 18-16") that "The bill, which passed by an 18-16 vote, would mean pregnant mothers convicted of doing marijuana, LSD, methamphetamine or other drugs could face up to five years in jail and a $50,000 penalty. If the option is available to them, the guilty mothers could choose to attend drug court instead of going to jail."

According to the State Journal, "Law enforcement officials have said the bill would give them a new tool in the fight against meth and other drugs and local prosecutors say the measure would benefit the health of both mothers and their children. But opponents of the proposal blasted the “meth moms" bill on Tuesday as a reactionary solution to an ever-widening social problem. "The bill does nothing to address the problem of addiction," said Sen. Kate Kelly, D-Boise. “Being addicted to meth is not a crime, it's a disease." According to one lawmaker, statistics from South Carolina have shown that implementation of tough laws against pregnant drug users result in an 80 percent reduction in pre-natal treatment."

The State Journal noted that "Interestingly, the 35-member Senate includes only four women, three of whom voted against the bill. And while methamphetamine and other drugs are widely thought to have negative consequences if taken during pregnancy, the only substance definitively shown to harm a fetus is alcohol, a product legal to those age 21 and over."

Missouri Prosecutors Begin Assault On Meth-Using Mothers

Local prosecutors in Missouri are using a section of Missouri law to go after pregnant women who are found to have used methamphetamine. The Springfield News-Leader reported on Dec. 29, 2005 ( "Charge Filed After Baby Born With Meth Traces") that "A Springfield mother faces a charge of child endangerment after she and her newborn baby tested positive for methamphetamine. Greene County Assistant Prosecutor Jill Patterson said she expected to prosecute similar cases as part of a new policy targeting mothers who use illegal drugs shortly before giving birth. Sarah A. Weese, 19, was charged Tuesday with one count of first-degree endangering the welfare of a child, a class C felony punishable by up to seven years in prison. A toxicology report found that Weese had methamphetamine in her system when she gave birth in May to her daughter at St. John's Hospital, according to the probable cause statement filed in the case. When questioned by a Springfield police officer, Weese admitted to smoking about a gram of methamphetamine three days before giving birth. Tests of the baby's excrement sent to a Minnesota lab tested positive for the drug, as well."

According to the News-Leader, "Patterson said the new policy of charging mothers who use drugs close to childbirth is the result of conversations and 'brainstorming' with pediatricians and police. 'It's something I've been aware of for quite some time,' she said. Advice from doctors — who could provide expert testimony about the damage of prenatal drug use — helped establish a focus for prosecution, she said. 'I've determined that how you do that, at least initially, is by prosecuting the ones who test positive at birth.' Although she hasn't ruled out filing charges in cases that involve marijuana or other drugs, Patterson said pediatricians singled out cocaine and methamphetamine as posing the most significant risks to newborns. 'There has to be a pretty clear relationship between the risks (posed by the mother's behavior) and the effects on the child,' she said. '... If you're using meth close to birth, there are very immediate risks.'"

The News-Leader noted that "Patterson said that as part of the new effort, she has been working with police to establish a system that would initiate a police response when a new mother tests positive for drugs — a similar system triggers newborn crisis assessments by the Missouri Department of Social Services' Children's Division. Deborah Scott, a spokeswoman for the Department of Social Services, said the agency does not track the number of children removed from their parents by type of drug — yet. But drugs, especially methamphetamine, are often a factor. 'We track the number of children that are removed from their parents annually due to a drug-related cause,' Scott said Wednesday. '... Of the approximately 11,000 children in the Children's Division's custody, about 29 percent of them had parental drug use as a condition of removal (as of March, 2005).'"

Wyoming Legislator Pushes To Further Penalize Drug-Dependent Women Who Try To Have Children

A court ruling has prompted a legislative attempt to further criminalize pregnant women who are also drug-dependent. The Billings Gazette reported on Oct. 3, 2005 ( "Legislators Prepare Bill In Response To Meth Ruling") that "Rep. Elaine Harvey is having a bill drafted to make it clear that a new Wyoming law protecting children from methamphetamine also applies to an unborn child. Last week, a state district judge in Lander dismissed a child endangerment case against a woman whose newborn child tested positive for methamphetamine because the state law did not specifically say it applied to fetuses. Harvey, R-Lovell, was the chief sponsor of the 2004 felony child endangerment law the defendant, Michele Ann Foust, 31, was charged under. 'I thought we were covered. The intent was to protect unborn children but apparently this is a gray area,' Harvey said."

According to the Gazette, "The law carries a penalty of five years in prison, a $5,000 fine, or both for allowing a child to be in a place where meth is 'possessed, stored or ingested.' Harvey said she will take her proposed changes to the law to a meeting of the Governor's Task Force on Drug Endangered Children this week in Cheyenne. Meanwhile, the prosecutor in the Foust case, Ed Newell, said he will also seek legislation to attack the problem, but through existing laws rather than by changing the child endangerment law. 'I don't want to jump into that whole abortion briar patch,' Newell said. 'I have no interest in spawning a lot of pro-choice, pro-life debates.' He suggested amending the law against use of a controlled substance to increase the penalty for a pregnant user. A second step would be to require a mandatory minimum sentence for people who deliver meth to a pregnant woman."

The Gazette noted that "Linda Burt, director of the Wyoming Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said such laws put women in a vulnerable position and discourage them from getting prenatal care or treatment for abuse problems. 'They're not helpful to women and they're not helpful to children,' Burt said. The only bill the Legislative Service Office could find that dealt specifically with prenatal substance abuse was never introduced, said its sponsor, former House Speaker Bruce Hinchey of Casper. Hinchey's bill, prepared for the 1996 budget session, would have required medical professionals to report neonatal substance abuse by the mother. It also authorized the Department of Family Services to take into temporary protective custody a newborn infant that tested positive for illegal drugs. Hinchey said he sponsored the bill because of the number of reported cases of women taking illegal drugs during pregnancy. He never introduced the bill partly because people warned him it would touch off a debate on abortion rights."

Beyond Zero Tolerance: Oakland High School Provides Model For Drug Abuse Prevention

A model drug abuse prevention program for high schools that's been under development at a California high school for several years is making its national debut. The Oakland Tribune reported on Sept. 30, 2005 ( "Oakland School A Drug-Fight Model") that "A new strategy that national drug-policy reform advocates say is a better means of keeping teenagers off drugs is partly based on a program used for years at Oakland High School. The Drug Policy Alliance on Thursday unveiled 'Beyond Zero Tolerance,' a booklet providing a blueprint for overhauling how schools address teen drug use."

According to the Tribune, "'Zero tolerance is the ideological basis for the practices we want to change — it's the mantra of the drug war as we know it, and it applies to education as much as it does to law enforcement,' said booklet author Rodney Skager, professor emeritus of education at the University of California, Los Angeles. In the booklet, Skager writes that he was first introduced to the concept of 'interactive drug education' by Charles Ries, who runs the UpFront drug program now in its eighth year at Oakland High School. Ries also was on Thursday's conference call unveiling the strategy. 'Essentially, our philosophy is that we create safe environments in which students can discuss their feelings about their using, their friends using, their families using or not using,' he said. 'They're hungry for a place to come and do this ... and they're far more likely to speak up when they need help.'"

The Tribune noted that "Skager said anti-drug education should be focused in high schools, where it is more relevant to children of the appropriate stage of mental and emotional development. And this education must be 'interactive,' he said, meaning it fosters a feeling of connection between students, teachers and the school. Today's 'zero-tolerance' policies that threaten expulsion for drug use and boot users out of the classroom and onto the street only alienate students. Threats must be replaced with 'restorative practices' that teach kids about the effects drugs have on them, their families and their peers, and which give support and aid to children who have already used drugs, Skager said. Most of all, teenagers must receive honest information about drugs in a nonjudgmental atmosphere that lets them share their experiences and ask any questions, including a request for help, he said."

According to the Tribune, the program "includes a series of five in-class workshops on drug topics; ongoing, periodic work by classroom groups; support groups, both voluntary and mandatory; individual counseling; peer facilitator and educator training, to bring certain students into the planning process; mandatory monthly education groups for children already using drugs, alcohol or tobacco; and input from community organizations such as residential drug-treatment programs and anti-violence groups."

For more information, check out UpFront Programs. Also, you can download a copy of Beyond Zero Tolerance from the Safety1st website of the Drug Policy Alliance.

Feds Issue Report On Denial Of Benefits To Drug Offenders

The Government Accountability Office ( GAO) issued a report on Sept. 26, 2005, titled " Drug Offenders: Various Factors May Limit the Impacts of Federal Laws That Provide for Denial of Selected Benefits." According to GAO, "Several provisions of federal law allow for or require certain federal benefits to be denied to individuals convicted of drug offenses in federal or state courts. These benefits include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), food stamps, federally assisted housing, postsecondary education assistance, and some federal contracts and licenses. Given the sizable population of drug offenders in the United States, the number and the impacts of federal denial of benefit provisions may be particularly important if the operations of these provisions work at cross purposes with recent federal initiatives intended to ease prisoner reentry and foster prisoner reintegration into society."

GAO found that:
"For the years for which it obtained data, GAO estimates that relatively small percentages of applicants but thousands of persons were denied postsecondary education benefits, federally assisted housing, or selected licenses and contracts as a result of federal laws that provide for denying benefits to drug offenders. During academic year 2003-2004, about 41,000 applicants (or 0.3 percent of all applicants) were disqualified from receiving postsecondary education loans and grants because of drug convictions. For 2003, 13 of the largest public housing agencies in the nation reported that less than 6 percent of 9,249 lease terminations that occurred in these agencies were for reasons of drug-related criminal activities—such as illegal distribution or use of a controlled substance—and 15 large public housing agencies reported that about 5 percent of 29,459 applications for admission were denied admission for these reasons. From 1990 through the second quarter of 2004, judges in federal and state courts were reported to have imposed sanctions to deny benefits such as federal licenses, grants, and contracts to about 600 convicted drug offenders per year.
"Various factors affect which convicted drug felons are eligible to receive TANF or food stamps. This is because state of residence, income, and family situation all play a role in determining eligibility. Federal law mandates that convicted drug felons face a lifetime ban on receipt of TANF and food stamps unless states pass laws to exempt some or all convicted drug felons in their state from the ban. At the time of GAO’s review, 32 states had laws exempting some or all convicted drug felons from the ban on TANF, and 35 states had laws modifying the federal ban on food stamps. Because of the eligibility requirements associated with receiving these benefits, only those convicted drug felons who, but for their conviction, would have been eligible to receive the benefits could be affected by the federal bans. For example, TANF eligibility criteria include requirements that an applicant have custodial care of a child and that income be below state-determined eligibility thresholds. Available data for 14 of 18 states that fully implemented the ban on TANF indicate that about 15 percent of drug offenders released from prison in 2001 met key eligibility requirements and constitute the pool of potentially affected drug felons. Proportionally more female drug felons than males may be affected by the ban, as about 27 percent of female and 15 percent of male drug offenders released from prison in 2001 could be affected."

Below is a table from the GAO's report.

A full copy of the GAO report on denial of federal benefits is available from the CSDP website or directly through the GAO.