Reason Foundation

40th Anniversary of the Rockefeller Drug Laws: Time to Re-think Sentencing Policy

Posted on May 8, 2013, 4:25pm | Lauren Galik

40 years ago today, New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller enacted the toughest drug laws in the nation. Known as the Rockefeller Drug Laws, this legislation served as a milestone in America’s war on drugs and helped paved the way for the enactment of similar legislation that became the norm in sentencing policy across the nation, even to this day.

After President Nixon declared drug abuse to be “public enemy number one” in 1971, Rockefeller, like many politicians across the U.S., pushed for “tough on crime” policies that demanded harsh prison sentences for nonviolent drug offenders, even low-level drug dealers and addicts. When passed, the Rockefeller Drug Laws forced New York judges to sentence those convicted of possessing small amounts of certain drugs, even marijuana, to a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years to life in prison, similar to sentences handed out for second-degree murder convictions.

The harsh Rockefeller Drug laws became the model for other states seeking similar “tough on crime” policies, and many adopted New York’s approach to sentencing. This forceful reaction to the nation’s perceived drug problem led to a dramatic increase in the number of prisoners serving sentences for drug offenses, and has cost taxpayers billions of dollars over time.

According to NPR:

Due in part to Rockefeller-style laws, the nation's prison population exploded from 330,000 in 1973 to a peak of 2.3 million. That meant building hundreds of new state and federal prisons. By 2010, more than 490,000 people were working as prison guards.

It’s clear, however, that public opinion has shifted since the Rockefeller Drug Laws were enacted 40 years ago. Indeed, even Joseph Persico, the aide who helped push through Rockefeller's drug laws, has said, “I concluded very early that this was a failure. It's filling up the prisons, first-time offenders. This was obviously unjust — and not just unjust, it was unwise; it was ineffective."

As the negative effects of these laws have become more apparent, a number of states have reduced or completely eliminated mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses in an attempt to reduce their swollen prison populations and corrections expenditures, New York being one of them. In 2009, New York partially reformed Rockefeller Drug Laws by restoring judicial discretion in most drug cases, expanding drug treatment and alternatives to incarceration, and providing retroactive sentencing relief for people serving prison time for low-level drug offenses.

Despite the changes made in some states, many other states still sentence nonviolent drug offenders as they did forty years ago. As a result, more than 330,000 Americans are serving long sentences for nonviolent drug offenses in prisons that are becoming increasingly overcrowded. Inmates serving sentences for drug offenses make up 47.3 percent of the current inmate population in federal prisons.

It’s time to come to terms with the fact that this Rockefeller Drug Law-era of sentencing has failed. In his 2009 State of the State address, New York Governor David Patterson told his audience: "I can't think of a criminal justice strategy that has been more unsuccessful than the Rockefeller Drug Laws." One hopes that on the 40th anniversary of the Rockefeller Drug Laws, lawmakers across the country are having similar revelations about their own failed sentencing policies.

New at Reason: Privatization Developments in Criminal Justice and Corrections

Posted on May 6, 2013, 3:55pm | Leonard Gilroy

The rollout of Reason Foundation's Annual Privatization Report 2013 continues today with the release of the Criminal Justice and Corrections section—authored by Leonard Gilroy, Harris Kenny, Alexander Volokh and Andrew Livingston—which provides an overview of the latest on privatization and public-private partnerships in criminal justice and corrections. Topics include:

• 2012 Corrections Privatization Overview
• State and International Corrections Privatization Update
• State and Local Correctional Healthcare Privatization Update
• ANALYSIS: Recent Developments in the Federal Civil-Rights Liability of Federal Private Prisons
• FOCUS: The Emergence of Social Impact Bonds: Paying for Success in Social Service Innovation
• FOCUS: Colorado, Washington State Vote to Tax and Regulate Recreational Marijuana for Adults

» Annual Privatization Report 2013: Criminal Justice and Corrections
» Complete Annual Privatization Report 2013

Reason’s First Feature-Length Documentary: “America’s Longest War”

Posted on March 25, 2013, 1:43pm | Cathy Reisenwitz

Reason Foundation's first feature-length documentary uncovers the extraordinary costs of the U.S. government’s 40-year war on drugs. Here’s the trailer for America’s Longest War:

America’s Longest War provides a brief history of drug prohibition, beginning with President Richard Nixon’s declaration of war in 1971 and ending with President Barack Obama’s broken promise to allow states to determine their own medical marijuana policies. America’s Longest War chronicles how the drug war has escalated from a small domestic program, mostly focused on treatment, to the multi-billion dollar international war it is today. There are many of victims of the war on drugs, and America’s Longest War tells some of their stories.

Please sign up for updates on events and release dates at our website. Follow us on Facebook. 

Taxing and Regulating Recreational Marijuana in CO, WA (AUDIO)

Posted on February 6, 2013, 12:57pm | Harris Kenny

I recently appeared on the Tax Policy Podcast hosted by Richard Morrison, Manager of Communications at the Tax Foundation, to discuss taxing and regulating recreational marijuana in Colorado (Amendment 64) and Washington State (Initiative 502). The roughly fifteen minute interview covers a wide range of issues, such as:

• Providing background on marijuana policy issues in Colorado;
• Defining the language, regulatory and tax concerns of Amendment 64 within the context of implementation;
• Explaining the challenges of formalizing the recreational marijuana industry;
• Comparing repealing prohibition of alcohol to marijuana;
• Highlighting federal and state concerns that may inhibit implementation; and much more.

Listen to the full interview online (MP3 audio file) here.

To clarify one comment I made in the interview, technically the Oregon's Measure 80 would not have created state owned and operated stores. However, it would have put strong state controls in place, including price setting, the summary of the certified ballot reads:

Currently, marijuana cultivation, possession and delivery are prohibited; regulated medical marijuana use is permitted. Measure replaces state, local marijuana laws except medical marijuana and driving under the influence laws; distinguishes "hemp" from "marijuana"; prohibits regulation of hemp. Creates commission to license marijuana cultivation by qualified persons and to purchase entire crop. Commission sells marijuana at cost to pharmacies, medical research facilities, and to qualified adults for profit through state-licensed stores. Ninety percent of net goes to state general fund, remainder to drug education, treatment, hemp promotion. Bans sales to, possession by minors. Bans public consumption except where signs permit, minors barred. Commission regulates use, sets prices, other duties; Attorney General to defend against federal challenges/prosecutions. Provides penalties. Effective January 1, 2013; other provisions.

For more on this issue, see Reason Foundation's drug policy research archive here.

  Follow Harris Kenny on Twitter @harriskenny

Should States Duplicate Washington Initiative 502?

Posted on December 27, 2012, 7:00am | Harris Kenny

Last month, voters in Colorado and Washington legalized recreational marijuana through Initiative 502 (I-502) and Amendment 64 (A-64) respectively. These two ballot measures marked an historic shift in state-level drug policy, but they had several important differences. So, which approach should the other 48 states consider duplicating? 

Nina Shapiro for Seattle Weekly reports that Norm Stamper, Seattle police chief and a marijuana legalization advocate, despite endorsing I-502, “now question(s) whether or not Washington state’s initiative needed to be as restrictive as it is.” Stamper also anticipates either judicial or legislative action will reexamine I-502’s more controversial provisions. Shapiro explains,

Well, before the election, 502 campaigners said that such restrictions were necessary to get a legalization initiative approved by the general public—drawing upon lessons learned from California's failed initiative, Proposition 19, especially in regards to the DUI provision. As 502 campaign director Alison Holcomb told SW, post-election surveys indicated that California voters were worried about stoned drivers.

But Colorado's successful legalization measure, Amendment 64, didn't have any DUI provision. It also allows limited home grows (six plants, to be exact). And yet, Stamper points out, that amendment passed by a "very, very healthy" margin, with 55 percent of voters giving it the thumbs-up—almost the same margin as Washington's more restrictive initiative.

NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) legal director Keith Stroup said the results in Washington and Colorado "open up the possibility that issues like DUID [driving under the influence of drugs] and home cultivation may not be as important as we initially thought."

Despite Colorado’s perceived successful legalization approach, local officials have significant latitude when it comes to implementation, thereby stoking uncertainty. For example, the El Paso County Commissioners recently voted to ban retail marijuana stores despite a majority of their constituents voting for A-64. El Paso County Commission Chairwoman Amy Lathen levied a peculiar criticism when she argued a “huge portion” of the campaign to legalize marijuana was “just a complete lie to voters.” She continued,

“I have no problem in saying that… Telling people that we’re going to get have these great taxes for schools when it takes another very arduous process to do so, I think, is deceptive. There’s no question that that was deceptive in the campaign.”

This criticism is one that I haven't heard very often, but regardless of its veracity, A-64 does grant local governments authority to make decisions like bans. If local government policymakers act in conflict with the will of their constituents, voters may seek accountability through the ballot box to ensure their voices are heard. 

The ongoing dialogue in Washington and Colorado is arguably the most important state-level policy debate happening today—and it is about to start having a serious impact on other states too. Marijuana Policy Project spokesperson Mason Tvert, who worked on the Yes on (Amendment) 64 campaign, explained to Shapiro that legislators in at least five states (Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, Massachusetts and New Hampshire) have indicated an intent to submit marijuana regulation and taxation bills in the 2013 session.

For more of Reason Foundation’s work on marijuana legalization implementation, read the op-ed Leonard Gilroy and I recently authored for The Colorado Springs Gazette here, and additional writing here and here.

  Follow Harris Kenny on Twitter @harriskenny

[Op-Ed] Legislature has the Chance to Set a Standard on 64

Posted on December 21, 2012, 7:20pm | Harris Kenny

Yesterday, Leonard Gilroy and I co-authored an op-ed published in The Colorado Springs Gazette for the Independence Institute (a Denver-based free market think tank) entitled, "Legislature has the chance to set a standard on 64." The piece specifically explores implementation of Amendment 64 to the Colorado state constitution. It begins:

Last month Colorado voters resoundingly passed Amendment 64 into the state constitution, legalizing both recreational marijuana and industrial hemp. So far, realizing the will of the voters is on track, but implementation risks threaten to undermine the intentions behind Amendment 64. Policy makers are contending with thriving black markets and gray markets (goods or services that while legal, are still traded outside of any tax or regulatory regime), so it is in their best interests to get this right—even if they didn’t support the initiative in the first place.

The piece goes on to explore challenges at the federal level, and potential solutions to those challenges. However, issues of federal preemption need to be considered in their proper context while state and local policy makers move forward with implementation. The piece continues:

Amendment 64 allows possession and transfer without remuneration of up to one ounce of marijuana, and home cultivation of up to six marijuana plants for adults over 21. It also calls for Colorado policy makers to adopt laws taxing and regulating marijuana, a critical step towards creating a legal, commercial market. But a failure of the legislature to follow through could work to perpetuate prohibition-enabled black and gray market operations.

The best way for policy makers to avoid this scenario would be to swiftly establish the tax and regulatory components of the new system, so marijuana is regulated akin to alcohol. Unlike alcohol, though, the policies must be clear and effective on both sides of the cash register...

We go on to explain that Colorado's regulatory regime for alcohol is not the ideal model, for several reasons. We then highlight issues that will likely impact consumers. Looming excise tax increases pose a threat to implementation efforts as well. The piece concludes:

Black and gray market operators have proven resilient throughout the so-called “War on Drugs,” while policy makers obstinately continue ineffective prohibition that squanders countless dollars and ruins lives. Instead, the people of Colorado tasked policy makers with adopting more sophisticated drug policy by legalizing recreational marijuana and industrial hemp. While early signals are encouraging, implementation risk looms large, and voters are watching.

Read the whole piece online here.

For more of Reason Foundation's work on Amendment 64, see here and here; and watch my appearance on Devil's Advocate with Jon Caldara on Colorado Public Television alongside Joe Megysey here.

NCIA Panel Asks, 'Amendment 64: What's Next for the Feds?'

Posted on December 19, 2012, 8:00am | Harris Kenny

Last night I attended a panel event hosted by the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA) entitled, "Amendment 64: What's Next for the Feds?" in Denver, Colorado. According to their website, NCIA is, "the only trade association in the U.S. that works to advance the interests of cannabis-related businesses on the national level." The panelists (pictured above, from left to right) included:

• Steve Fox, director of public affairs for NCIA and co-founder of SAFER (Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation);
• Troy Eid, former U.S. Attorney appointed by President George W. Bush; and
• Christian Sederberg, founding member of Vicente Sederberg, LLC and member of Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper's Amendment 64 Task Force.

The panel was moderated by NCIA deputy director Betty Aldworth (pictured above, standing on the far right) who was also the spokesperson and advocacy director for the Yes on 64 campaign. 

So far, the federal government has not given a clear indication of what actions to expect, and this event reinforced that uncertainty.

Steve Fox's comments were optimistic, citing support from members of both the House and the Senate at the federal level. He also emphasized that federal guidance would help both Colorado and Washington move forward. Fox notably warned that while rescheduling of marijuana is worthwhile, in his opinion, it is also "not a panacea" to issues facing the cannabis industry.

Troy Eid's comments were staid, emphasizing that the federal government's enforcement of marijuana prohibition is unlikely to change because only two states are in conflict with federal law. He warned of "under the radar" strategies that fall short of litigation, but would be disruptive for producers, retailers and consumers. He suggested the federal government would not communicate its approach clearly or ahead of time, instead likely opting for opaque pronouncements and continued action. Eid did note that, politically, "there's a world of difference," after Amendment 64 and Initiative 502 passed in Colorado and Washington respectively, which he expects will have an impact.

Christian Sederberg's comments were pragmatic, both recognizing the risk that federal intervention poses and underscoring the need to keep that risk in context. Sederberg reiterated several points he raised in Governor Hickenlooper's first Amendment 64 Task Force meeting (which I wrote about here). Most notably, he explained that the debate over federal preemption of state laws should focus on, "(the) legitimate concerns of the federal government," e.g. public health issues and diversion to minors and/or neighboring states. 

A variety of other issues were discussed over the course of the event, such as banking restrictions and ways for NCIA members to engage the community. Overall, this was a thought provoking discussion that indicates the cannabis industry is seriously engaged in the ongoing policy debate, not just focused electoral victories.

For more of Reason Foundation's work on Amendment 64, see here and here, and watch my appearance on Devil's Advocate with Jon Caldara on Colorado Public Television alongside Joe Megysey here.

Follow Harris Kenny on Twitter @harriskenny.

Amendment 64 Task Force Concludes First Meeting

Posted on December 18, 2012, 8:00am | Harris Kenny

Last month, Colorado voters passed Amendment 64 to the state constitution, essentially legalizing marijuana in Colorado. (For more on this, see Reason’s work here, here and here.) Several weeks later, Governor John Hickenlooper announced the formation of a task force to hammer out specific implementation concerns.Yesterday, the 24-member task force (pictured on the right) met for the first time in an unassuming room at the Department of Revenue’s office building in Golden, Colorado.

After introductory remarks, Jack Finlaw, the Governor’s Chief Legal Counsel and co-chair of the marijuana task force, framed the task force’s duties and set the tone for the meeting saying: 

“Pursuant to the Governor’s executive order establishing the task force, he’s asked that we have a real focus on identifying the legal and the policy issues that are necessary to tackle, to implement Amendment 64. We’re not here to revisit the merits of Amendment 64, we’re not here to have a discussion as to whether or not legalizing marijuana in general, or if legalizing marijuana in the way Amendment 64 has done, is the right thing to do. We know it was put on the ballot, the voters approved it, so our job is to find ways to efficiently and effectively implement it.” 

Barbara Brohl, task force co-chair and executive director of Colorado’s Department of Revenue, explained the important administrative and technical matters that lay ahead. Brohl continued by outlining the five working groups that will be responsible for assisting the task force in its duties. The five working groups (with examples of their likely discussion topics) are listed below:

• Regulatory Framework
  • Legislative construction (like medical marijuana, liquor or a hybrid?)
  • Blending medical marijuana and recreational marijuana
  • Rule making processes
• Criminal Law Issues
  • Required changes to existing criminal statutes and impact on prosecution
  • Defining impairment, specifically in the case of motor vehicle use
  • Traffic stops and probable cause
• Local Authority and Control
  • Role of local government in the regulatory model
  • Local government’s authority to opt out
  • Clarifying mandates and sources of revenue for state and local bodies
• Tax Funding and Civil Law Issues
  • Collection and revenue generation, and constitutionality of the tax mandate
  • Fee structure to support regulatory enforcement
  • Impact on employment in the public and private sector
• Consumer Safety and Social Issues
  • Substance abuse and prevention, including outreach to minors
  • Restrictions on advertising
  • Products standards and labeling

Task force members went on to discuss and submit a range of additional concerns they have, with the assistance of a facilitator brought in for the meeting. Finally, there was a period for public comment giving an opportunity for laypeople, cannabis industry participants and medical marijuana patients, among others, to speak. 

Click here for a full-length audio recording of the meeting, approximately two hours and ten minutes.

Follow Harris Kenny on Twitter @harriskenny.

Video: Colorado Marijuana Legalization Update

Posted on December 14, 2012, 11:12am | Harris Kenny

Last month Colorado voters passed Amendment 64 to the state Constitution, which essentially legalized recreational marijuana in Colorado. My colleague Leonard Gilroy and I explained the implementation hurdles that policymakers face in the months and years ahead at Real Clear Markets, we wrote:

Cash strapped states no doubt are salivating at the potential deluge of new revenue. (Both measures are unique, so for clarity this piece will focus on Colorado.) The Colorado Center on Law and Policy estimates Colorado's Amendment 64 will generate $60 million annually, a figure that could double after 2017. This fiscal bonanza would come primarily from new tax revenue generated from excise taxes on wholesalers and new state and local sales taxes -- but also avoided costs to the criminal justice system. However, these revenues will materialize only if the legalization is done right.

The piece goes on to explain the various tax and regulatory concerns that constitute legalization being "done right."

More recently, I appeared on Devil's Advocate with Jon Caldara (a program hosted on Colorado Public Television) to discussion the subject in depth. I appeared on the program alongside Joe Megyesy who consulted the Yes on 64 campaign and will remain involved to oversee its implementation efforts. This episode is approximately 27 minutes long, watch it online below:

For more of Reason Foundation's work on implementing marijuana legalization, see our Real Clear Markets piece here (which also appears on reason.com here) and this blog post (which I wrote the day after the election after attending a press conference held by Yes on 64 across from the State Capitol.)

Follow Harris Kenny on Twitter @harriskenny.

Questions Remain About Amendment 64's Tax Component

Posted on November 10, 2012, 8:00am | Harris Kenny

On Wednesday morning Mason Tvert, Brian Vicente and Betty Aldworth of Yes on 64 stood in Civic Center Park between the Colorado state capitol and Denver’s city hall to clarify “next steps” after Coloradans voted to legalize marijuana through Amendment 64 to the state Constitution.

A statement issued by the campaign reiterated voters intentions and provided economic analysis from the Colorado Center on Law and Policy that estimates implementation could produce $60 million annually in combined savings and revenue for the Colorado state budget; a figure that could potentially increase to $120 million by 2017. The excise tax language that would raise some of that revenue remains to be determined by the state legislature, and would likely have to go back to Colorado voters for approval in compliance with TABOR (the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights).

When Amendment 64's organizers were asked if they’ve spoken with leaders in the state house or senate about implementing the bill, Aldworth said there have been, “Private conversations with state legislators and the Colorado national delegation on what it’s going to take to implement the will of the voters.”

Meanwhile, Vicente explained that language in the bill does mandate state action, however it has a dual licensing regime that also empowers local governments to institute their own licenses for retail locations that are expected to open in January 2014, regardless of state action.

I bumped into State Senator Rollie Heath (D-18), whose district includes Boulder, in front of the Capitol afterward, and asked him about Amendment 64. He did not give me a clear indication of how state legislators might respond.

There have been clearer signs of support from Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper at Snell & Wilmer’s “Fourth Annual Colorado Focus” late Wednesday afternoon. When asked about whether or not state and local law enforcement resources would be used to pursue possession or use of marijuana, he said it was “not likely,” but it would depend on language in state legislation. Gov. Hickenlooper went on to explain, “When you see a vote like that, it’s pretty clear what the people wanted. (The government) would be poor served to disregard it.” (According to the latest data issued by the Secretary of State, Amendment 64 won by almost ten points, with 54.8% supporting and 45.2% opposed.)

The Colorado Department of Revenue will be responsible for implementing significant parts of the legislation for the executive branch. Aldworth later explained that the Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division is expected to assume many of the enforcement duties.

This makes sense from a policy perspective, but intuitively Coloradans appear to have presumed the connection too. Yesterday KOAA News 5 reported, “Marijuana dispensaries (are being) overwhelmed with ‘recreational’ inquiries.” Tanya Garduno, president of the Colorado Springs Medical Cannabis Council, explained that medical dispensaries are not allowed to sell recreationally right now. Interestingly, she say the industry is split 50-50 between dispensaries that want to serve recreation clients, and dispensaries that want to remain patient-oriented and provide medical grade marijuana.

This post originally appeared on reason.com on November 9, 2012.

Follow Harris Kenny on Twitter @harriskenny

Union-Propagated Red Herrings Continue to Mar Corrections Research

Posted on June 13, 2012, 2:11pm | Harris Kenny

My latest reason.org commentary entitled Union-Propogated Red Herrings Continue to Mar Corrections Research begins:

Yesterday Mike Hall posted on AFL-CIO Now’s In the States blog about a recent report entitled, Prison Bed Profiteers: How Corporations Are Reshaping Criminal Justice in the U.S. from the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD). Unfortunately NCCD falls for red herrings propagated by public employee unions like the AFL-CIO, while ignoring pressing issues facing the U.S. criminal justice system. Specifically, they blame the private sector for problems that are more strongly correlated with the criminal justice system as a whole.

After explaining that anti-privatization critics present some sound criticisms of the U.S. criminal justice system as a whole, but miss the mark by focusing on private sector partners, the piece continues:

Meaningful reform requires an all-of-the-above strategy, not a distracting debate over public vs. private sector prison operation. This can best be addressed by considering the three elements of the U.S. criminal justice system: criminal sentencing, facility environments and recidivism.

The piece goes on to explore how reform strategies for each of these elements of the system and highlights related Reason Foundation research. The piece concludes:

Ultimately, the private sector has proven to be a capable partner for the public sector and there’s no reason to ignore that success. As is always the case with privatization, rigorous contracting is necessary to achieve optimal outcomes. Blaming the private sector solves nothing. Instead, an all-of-the-above strategy is necessary to address the major challenges facing the U.S. criminal justice system.

For more, see the full piece available online here, and visit Reason Foundation's Prisons and Corrections Research Archive.

NJ Legislature Exploring Decriminalizing Marijuana

Posted on May 21, 2012, 11:37am | Harris Kenny

Today the New Jersey Assembly Judiciary Committee is considering Assembly Bill Number 1465 (A1465), which would most notably decriminalize possession of 15 grams or less of marijuana, and impose a new range of civil penalties instead. Roseanne Scott, state director for the Drug Policy Alliance, told The Star-Ledger, "(this) the furthest a bill to decriminalize marijuana has ever gotten in the New Jersey Legislature." Specifically, the bill statement reads:

This bill would decriminalize possession of 15 grams or less of marijuana. A person who is found to possess 15 grams or less of marijuana would be subject to a $150 fine for a first violation, a $200 fine for a second violation, and a $500 fine for a third or subsequent violation…

In addition, any person who is 21 years of age or older who commits a third or subsequent violation would be referred to a drug education program approved by the Division of Mental Health and Addition Services in the Department of Human Services. A person who is less than 21 years of age at the time of the violation shall be referred to an approved drug education program following any violation. The person would be responsible for paying any costs associated with his participation in the program, consistent with his ability to pay. If the violation is committed by a person under the age of 18, the person would be referred to the Family Part of the Chancery Division of the Superior Court for an appropriate disposition.

A person who possesses drug paraphernalia for the personal use of 15 grams or less of marijuana would no longer have committed a criminal violation but would be subject to a $100 civil penalty.

Additionally, this bill would establish that it is no longer a disorderly persons offense to be under the influence of marijuana or to fail to voluntarily deliver 15 grams or less of marijuana to the nearest law enforcement officer. This bill would also eliminate the requirement that a person who operates a motor vehicle while in possession of 15 grams or less of marijuana must pay a $50 fine and forfeit the right to operate a motor vehicle for a period of two years.

The Commissioner of Human Services would adopt any rules and regulations necessary to effectuate the purposes of section 5 of this bill. This bill would not apply to persons who are in compliance with the “New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act,” N.J.S.A.24:6I-1 et al.

A1465 will likely benefit from recent momentum on drug policy reform, and enjoys widespread support in its own right. For example, New Jersey policymakers recently approved medical marijuana for the first time.  A1465 was first introduced by Assemblymen Reed Gusciora (D-Mercer) and has bipartisan support from 15 Democrats and three Republicans. And last week The Star-Ledger editorial board weighed in on A1465 bluntly, concluding:

Treat pot the same way we do alcohol, with education and treatment. Not by calling the cops. What didn’t work for bootleggers won’t stop the stoners.

Despite the aforementioned support, A1465 faces an uncertain future. It’s not clear whether the bill will make it out of committee, let alone out of the legislature. And while Governor Chris Christie has signaled interest in criminal sentencing reform, his office has not publicly commented on this particular bill.

Drug policy and criminal sentencing reform continue to gain momentum in New Jersey, making A1465 a bill to watch.

APR 2011: Corrections and Public Safety

Posted on May 2, 2012, 5:35pm | Harris Kenny

The rollout of Reason Foundation's Annual Privatization Report 2011 (APR 2011) concluded this week with the Corrections and Public Safety section, which provides an overview of the latest news and trends in public-private partnerships in corrections and public safety. Highlights include:

• According to the most recent data compiled by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the total U.S. prison population declined for the first time in nearly four decades. The decrease is attributed largely to a decline in new prison admissions relative to prison releases in state prisons.
• Approximately 8 percent of the total prison population is currently housed in privately owned and/or operated facilities, while the remaining 92 percent continue to be housed in government-run facilities.
• In the 2011 case Brown v. Plata, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled California’s correctional system is providing unconstitutional mental and medical care to inmates. At the time, California held about 156,000 inmates in a system designed for less than 80,000 inmates – nearly twice the design capacity. In response, the court ordered the state reduce its system-wide prison population at or below an average of 137.5 percent of prison design capacity.
• A new form of public-private partnership is emerging in the United Kingdom and Florida that could dramatically reduce recidivism and transform corrections, whereby contractors would be compensated for achieving specific performance goals in reducing recidivism and improving rehabilitation. Florida is exploring this model for an 18-county region and would apply dozens of performance measures to quantify outcomes.
• In September 2011, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, under the guidance of Gov. John Kasich, announced the results of a large-scale procurement that will see the state raise $72 million from the sale of one state prison to a private operator—the first sale of its kind in the nation—and two others turned over to private management, for an estimated $13 million in annualized cost savings.
• Lawmakers in Texas, Florida, Arizona, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and elsewhere are pursuing meaningfully expanding the role the private sector plays in inmate healthcare delivery.

» Annual Privatization Report 2011: Corrections and Public Safety [pdf, 1.4 MB]

» Complete Annual Privatization Report 2011 homepage

Supreme Court Rules Police Need a Warrant to Track Your Car

Posted on January 23, 2012, 3:07pm | Steven Titch

In a major step toward defending constitutional rights and due process in an age of high-tech surveillance, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that police require a search warrant to place a tracking device on a suspect's vehicle.

In doing so, the high court overturned the conviction of Washington, D.C nightclub owner Antoine Jones on charges of conspiracy to sell drugs. To convict Jones, prosecutors used as evidence information from a GPS tracker that had been attached to Jones' SUV. Although the Washington, D.C. police had obtained a search warrant for the device, officers did not execute the warrant until the day after it had expired. They also placed the device on the vehicle when it was in Maryland, outside the D.C. jurisdiction of the warrant. Jones' attorneys appealed his conviction to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Fourth Amendment grounds against illegal search and seizure. Prosecutors, supported by the Obama administration, argued that the search warrant, however improperly executed, was unnecessary to begin with because GPS tracking was not a search as defined by the Bill of Rights. The Appeals Court disagreed and the Supreme Court today upheld the ruling.

The decision will stand as a watershed moment in the application of Fourth Amendment guarantees in an era where police--from local precincts up to the FBI--have a bevy of intrusive electronic tools at their disposal. Although the decision pertained to electronic surveillance, the Opinion of the Court, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, notably rested on brick-and-mortar aspects, primarily that police trespassed on private property to execute the warrant.

Still, by the court's own admission, the ruling doesn't cover the use of technologies that do not require law enforcement to set foot or otherwise tamper with a suspect's property. These can range from location tracking via automatic highway toll payment systems to the use of thermal and infrared cameras, which can "see" in the dark, and sophisticated radio imaging devices, which, although still in prototype, have the potential to see through walls.  

However, the Supreme Court, as it often does, used this case as an opportunity to set up a framework for future cases that might tackle these greater issues. It chose to say that the "no reasonable expectation of privacy" test that has been used in other Fourth Amendment cases, including Katz v. United States, to allow the use information obtained from a suspect's behavior in public--as well as the use of information if it has been transferred to a third party--did not apply in this case. Even so, the opinion seemed to go out of its way to note that "expectation of privacy" claim was intended to augment, not diminish or replace, citizens' rights against search and seizure as laid down in the Fourth Amendment. It subtly reclaims "expectation of privacy" as touchstone for defendants and makes it less of an escape clause for government snooping.

This could have ramifications should a case involving a warrantless seizure of electronic data from cloud-based third-party storage services, such as Carbonite and Dropbox, come before the Supreme Court. Here again, then, the opinion chose to quote from Katz, reminding us that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places."

States Coalescing Around Petitioning DEA to Reschedule Marijuana

Posted on December 8, 2011, 5:10pm | Harris Kenny

The Colorado Independent reports today that Colorado is joining Rhode Island and Washington State in “(petitioning) the federal government to change the schedule of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act, a move they claim will move the conflict between federal drug laws and state laws that allow the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries. Colorado will file its own request before the end of the year.”

Marijuana (also known as cannabis) is currently a schedule I controlled substance in the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regulations, 21 C.F.R. Section 1308.11. According to the DEA, this scheduling designation means:

(Schedule 1 substances) have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Drugs listed in schedule I have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and, therefore, may not be prescribed, administered, or dispensed for medical use. In contrast, drugs listed in schedules II-V have some accepted medical use and may be prescribed, administered, or dispensed for medical use.

Rhode Island and Washington State submitted their petitions several weeks ago, with support from their respective governors (Lincoln Chaffee and Christine Gregoire). Each state has a strong history of leading in this policy area.

• Rhode Island legalized medical marijuana in 2006 through the passage of The Edward O. Hawkins and Thomas C. Slater Medical Marijuana Act, which was later amended by Senate Bill (SB) 07-791 and SB 09-185.
• Washington State legalized medical marijuana in 1998 through voter approval of Initiative 692, which was later amended by SB 07-6032, SB 10-5798, and SB 11-5073.

Meanwhile, Colorado legalized medical marijuana in 2000 through voter approval of Amendment 20, which was later amended by SB 10-109, House Bill (HB) 10-1284 and HB 11-1043. Colorado was essentially dragged into joining the other states by complying with a two-year old state law (HB 10-1284) that requires:

In recognition of the potential medical value of medical marijuana, (the Department of Revenue) make a request by January 1, 2012 to the federal Drug Enforcement Administration to consider rescheduling, for pharmaceutical purposes, medical marijuana from a schedule I controlled substance to a schedule II controlled substance.

Unlike in Rhode Island or Washington State, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper will not sign the petition. Hickenlooper is instead opting to have the Department of Revenue submit the petition.

While three states have coalesced around this issue so far, more states are expected to join since 16 states (including the District of Columbia) have now passed medical marijuana laws. In recent weeks Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie have made public statements essentially supporting a re-evaluation of the federal government's so-called "War on Drugs."

Changes in state law could have a dramatic impact on law enforcement and correctional policy across the country. States are not required to enforce federal law, so they can get around DEA scheduling, however the specter of federal enforcement haunts medical marijuana patients, producers, and providers. According to the latest U.S. Sentencing Commission data, drug offenses are the second largest category of federal convictions with 26% of those offenders being convicted for marijuana-related offenses. With marijuana legalization ballot measures anticipated in (at least) California and Colorado in the upcoming election, this will likely be a high-profile issue in 2012.

How Long Before Someone Dies Because of an Unsecured Wireless Router?

Posted on April 26, 2011, 11:48am | Steven Titch

According to an AP story out of Buffalo, N.Y., federal agents armed with assault weapons stormed a residence in the early morning hours last month looking for child porn on a home PC. The homeowner, whom the article did not identify, was roughed up and forced to the floor at gunpoint while agents accused him of being a creep and pervert.

Three hours later, after seizing the man’s PC along with his own and his wife’s iPhones and iPads, officials discovered no child porn and conceded that the raid had been a mistake.

It turned out that the resident had an unsecured wireless network, and that a neighbor—the actual culprit arrested a week later—had been using it to avoid detection. The AP does not say whether the Fed apologized for the raid, but the law enforcement community did its best to deflect blame. An official said that the homeowner would have avoided the confrontation if he had secured his home wireless network.

But even the AP article points out that the Feds could have easily determined that the network was unsecured before breaking down the door. And given that somewhat intelligent pedophiles know they can cover their tracks by finding and using someone else’s Internet connection—the AP article lists several examples where it’s been done--agents and their supervisors could have exercised some common sense before conducting a heavily-armed raid.

Here at Reason and formerly the Cato Institute, Randy Balko has been doing some terrific work detailing the cost police paramilitary tactics have had in terms of human life. A regular component of the drug war, these raids, often conducted for their theatrical value, too often end up targeting the wrong house or the wrong people with lethal results for innocent parties. To extend these militarized break-ins in a search for child porn, where the only evidence is an IP address, in a country where, as of 2007, an estimated 80 percent of home wireless networks were unsecure, is downright irresponsible. Police should not be using them; judges should not be approving them.

Besides, the whole (dubious) justification for a surprise, armed-to-the-teeth police raid is that the suspects themselves may be armed, and to prevent a drug stash from being quickly disposed of down a convenient toilet. Whatever you may say about their characters, collectors and distributors of child porn are not likely to be armed or violent, and a laptop or hard drive can’t be erased within seconds. Even if an attempt to delete a disk is made, the data is likely to be recoverable.

Yes, it is wise to secure your home wireless network, but failure to do so is not a crime and certainly not an excuse for police to use when they wrongly terrorize you in your own home. The AP article doesn’t say if the homeowner is pursuing any action against the federal government for the botched raid, but he should. Some expensive judgments today might, in the future, prevent a SWAT team from killing someone while attempting to seize a laptop, only to learn that the real culprit was a creep down the street who rigged a repeater with a potato chip can.

Are Sin Taxes on Marijuana a Price Worth Paying for Reform?

Posted on October 13, 2010, 9:00am | David Godow

Advocates of Proposition 19, the pending California referendum that would legalize the small-scale production and use of marijuana, have made new consumption taxes on cannabis a major selling point for their measure. Proponents claim that tax measures would bring in $1.4 billion for local governments and that marijuana use would be safer under a regime of taxation than prohibition.

Rosy revenue numbers and a promise to remedy social ills are always trotted out to justify new sin taxes; these arguments have been fitted to alcohol, cigarettes, and other unhealthy or otherwise unpopular products for years. Fiscal conservatives like myself counter that sin taxes are regressive, not reliable revenue generators, and fundamentally a bad tax policy tool.

Still, let's be clear that the drawbacks of a potential marijuana tax shouldn't be an impediment to legalization. Removing the legal barriers to responsible marijuana use would be a watershed moment in California and U.S. drug policy, and if new sin taxes are the price for that, that price is certainly worth paying. Still, in the long run, policymakers should remember that a sin tax on cannabis will hurt the poor, hurt the sick and provide little relief for California's perennial budget troubles. 

Much ado has been made about the revenue potential of new levies on marijuana, but sin taxes are notorious for failing to meet fiscal expectations. This problem is magnified in the case of cannabis, because no one knows what the equilibrium price or demand of pot will be after decriminalization. Naturally, California tax administrators have every incentive to highball their guesses. Still, a sobering RAND Corporation study suggested price could drop from $375 per ounce to as low as $38, cutting $400 million in potential sales tax accruals from state $1.4 billion revenue estimate.

Revenue issues aside, the debate has unfortunately glossed over the equally compelling reasons that sin taxes are regressive and unfair. Indeed, one anti-tax argument should be of special interest to reformers that seek to help the poor and helpless: sin taxes almost always have a regressive incidence that draws on the most vulnerable segments of society to pay for general government services.

No estimates of the effects of a marijuana tax address its potential regressivity; lawmakers need to be asking about this. If the poor spend a higher proportion of their income on cannabis than the rich, as is the case with tobacco, soda and almost all other "sinful" products, much of a cannabis tax's revenue would come out of the pockets of California's least well off citizens. Disturbingly, this means that the current drug prohibition regime, responsible for putting so many poor people in jail, may well be replaced by a system that will continue to disproportionately target them.

We've already seen examples of how marijuana taxes can be used to target narrow, vulnerable segments of the population. Take the enthusiasm for taxing medical marijuana. As drug reform pioneer J. Craig Canada has pointed out, even pro-marijuana legalization organizations have advocated these discriminatory levies on medicine, which further inflate the spiraling medical costs of seriously ill people. This, of course, is a strategic move meant to legitimize marijuana use: if government taxes a good, it also tacitly places that good, and users of it, under the aegis of the law. Nonetheless, there's no getting around the fact that the burden of these taxes falls squarely on the sick and vulnerable, who will shell out more for medicine they desperately need.

It makes sense why marijuana advocates push the tax argument. New tax revenue serves as a powerful draw for legislators concerned about spiraling deficits or worried about being seen as "soft on crime." Moreover, the likelihood of new taxes on marijuana won't and shouldn't inhibit the march towards legalization; it is certainly better to have taxed, legal marijuana than remain with the status quo. Still, we should continue to strive for a future in which Californians can legally, safely, and cheaply use cannabis without the regressive and unfair burden of government sin taxes.

CA Will Vote on Legalizing Marijuana

Posted on March 27, 2010, 4:41pm | Adrian Moore

State election officials announced Wednesday that an initiative to legalize marijuana will be on the November ballot, triggering what will likely be an expensive, divisive and much-watched campaign to decide whether California will again lead the nation in softening drug laws.

. . .

Polls have indicated that a majority of voters in California want marijuana legalized, but the margin is not enough to ensure the initiative will win. Two years ago, opponents defeated an attempt to relax the state's drug laws despite being outspent. "It's always easier for people to say no than to say yes for an initiative," said Mark Baldassare, the pollster for the Public Policy Institute of California. "Generally, all it takes is for people to find one reason to say no."

. . .

But the measure, known as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, goes further, allowing cities and counties to adopt ordinances that would authorize the cultivation, transportation and sale of marijuana, which could be taxed to raise revenues. It's this feature of the initiative that supporters hope will draw support from voters who are watching their local governments jettison employees and programs in the midst of a severe budget crisis.

Read the rest of the LA Times story here.

Watch Judge Andrew Napolitano explain why marijuana should be legalized.

This campaign will lead to strange bedfellows. For example.

The Sports Stadium and Arena Debacle

Posted on July 1, 2009, 8:20am | Samuel Staley

Anyone following the plight of America's sports stadia and arenas should take a look through this article in the New York Times chronicling the debacle we've created with public subsidies. We have more arenas then ever, and often pit private venues against public ones. They all lose.

"In Glendale, Ariz., the city-owned Jobing.com Arena — which is losing money and events to US Airways Center in nearby Phoenix and a third arena at Arizona State — may lose its National Hockey League franchise, the Phoenix Coyotes, which filed for bankruptcy last month.

"In the Minneapolis-St. Paul region, the Target Center, which is owned by the city of Minneapolis, vies with the publicly subsidized Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul. The Minnesota Timberwolves basketball team plays at the Target Center; the Minnesota Wild hockey team plays at Xcel Energy Center. Both sites are losing money, and they must also compete with the University of Minnesota, which has two arenas.

"In Columbus, Ohio, the Blue Jackets hockey team recently opened negotiations to sell its money-losing Nationwide Arena to the county, but the recession has made the sale somewhat unlikely. Nationwide Arena competes for concerts and other nonsporting events with Ohio State University’s Jerome Schottenstein Center, which barely breaks even, according to a report by The Columbus Dispatch."

Perhaps the only thing more stunning is the degree to which owners of these venues continue lobbying for public subsidies and favors to protect their own franchises.

"In New Jersey, the owner of the Devils hockey team, which abandoned the Izod Center in the Meadowlands to play at Prudential Center, wants Gov. Jon S. Corzine to tear down the Izod Center, in the hopes of eliminating a competing venue."

 For those interested in knowing whether these projects make economic sense even in good times, I recommend reading Holycross College economist Victor Matheson's working paper on the subject.

Cutting Government Workers and Raising Taxes

Posted on June 10, 2009, 11:36am | Adrian Moore

On the side of appropriate reactions to the economic downturn, many states are cutting their workforce, even accounting for "stimulus" spending.

Already, 16 states downsized their staffs in fiscal 2009, which for most ends on June 30, according to a report last week from two state industry groups. Another 17 states are planning reductions for fiscal 2010.

Some 17,000 state workers have lost their jobs and another 98,000 layoffs have been proposed, according to a compilation by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a labor union.

On the other hand, most states are considering tax hikes totalling about $24 billion, half of which is in California.

Some 29 states are recommending tax and fee increases for the coming fiscal year.

California, which is struggling to close a $21.3 billion budget gap, accounts for $11.3 billion of the hike. Illinois makes up another $4.4 billion, while New York is proposing $4 billion in additional levies.

Gov. Schwarzenegger Says Its Time to Discuss Legalizing Marijuana

Posted on May 6, 2009, 3:09pm | Adrian Moore

It a good idea for a bad reason.  Arnie says it's time to talk about legalization, but not because of the harms of the war on drugs or the silliness of treating marijuana differently from alchohol, but because if it were legal it could be taxed and bring in more money for the state to spend. 

Sigh.

How about these 10 good reasons to legalize?

Heck the aricle mentions a poll showing 56% of registered voters approve of legalization. If majority support is enough to justify banning gay marriage, why isn't it enough to justify legalizing marijuana?

But most of all, Jacob Sullum here parses why a focus on excise tax revenue is off base when talking about legalization.

From the government's (and taxpayer's) point of view, the real fiscal benefit from abandoning the war on marijuana would come from no longer arresting, prosecuting, and jailing pot smokers, sellers, and growers. Drug law enforcement costs something like $40 billion a year, and marijuana accounted for 43 percent of drug arrests in 2005. That doesn't mean legalizing marijuana would save two-fifths of the money spent on the drug war, since marijuana offenders are much less likely to be imprisoned than other kinds of drug offenders. But the savings certainly would be substantial. And that's not counting all the indirect costs, such as marijuana offenders' legal expenses, loss of freedom, forgone income, and so on.

In short, the focus on the excise tax bonanza that legal marijuana supposedly would bring—a theme that is often emphasized by opponents of the war on drugs—is misplaced. Which is just as well, since I'm not a big fan of excise taxes.

L.A. City Council Votes to Study Parking Meter, Garage Privatization

Posted on May 1, 2009, 5:28pm | Leonard Gilroy

Earlier this week, the L.A. City Council took a big step towards implementing Mayor Villaraigosa's budget proposal by approving a $500,000 contract to study the feasibility of privatizing its 41,000 parking meters and six parking garages:

A plan to sell six city-owned garages and 41,000 parking meters was a step closer to becoming a reality Tuesday as the Los Angeles City Council agreed to spend $500,000 to determine the fiscal feasibility of privatization.

The contract directs JP Morgan Chase, Ramirez & Co. and Loop Capital to assess the benefits and risks of selling garages and meters in Los Angeles. Chicago completed two similar deals over the last three years, netting more than $1.7 billion for the Windy City.

It's unclear how much Los Angeles could net by selling its parking facilities, but the mayor's office assumes at least $80 million of whatever is raised would be used to balance the 2009-10 budget. Most of the proceeds would be put into reserve accounts.

"There are a number of pieces that are part of this puzzle," said interim Chief Administrative Officer Ray Ciranna."We're asking for the authority to enter into some contracts with financial advisers that will help us look at our revenue stream, both today and certainly over the life of the concession."

As proposed, the city would sell off 41,000 parking meters and garages at the Hollywood & Highland complex, Pershing Square, the Cinerama Dome and lots on Robertson Boulevard and Broxton and Cherokee avenues.

The city's parking meters gross about $46 million a year, Ciranna said, but the Department of Transportation will have to spend $25 million to $30 million to upgrade the equipment if the meters continue to be owned by the city. Los Angeles also has $138 million in outstanding debt on three parking facilities.

For more on parking facility privatization, see my recent posts here and here.

Medical Rationing Masquerading as Quality Care

Posted on April 9, 2009, 11:12am | Shikha Dalmia

Drs. Jerome Groopman and Pamela Hartzband wrote a column in yesterday's Wall Street Journal revealing a frightening new concept called "pay for performance" that Medicare bureaucrats are toying with to allegedly ensure proper patient care. Under it, Medicare would link doctor payments not to the services doctors provide, as is currently the case, but the quality of care they offer.

Sounds eminently sensible, right? And it would be if performance had something to do with patient satisfaction and actual clinical outcomes: whether, say -- and I don't want to go off on a limb here -- the patient actually lives or dies! That, however, is not the case. Rather, the quality of care is measured by a doctor's adherence to standardized protocols of care prescribed by a committee of experts.

Take diabetes, for instance, the good physicians note. In Massachusetts that has already institutionalized this new system, doctors are required to maintain normal levels of blood sugar in critically ill ICU patients.  If a physician allows blood sugar levels to rise above pre-ordained levels, he might even have to attend "re-education sessions" to be indoctrinated into the importance of the rule.

But maintaining normal blood sugar levels requires administering insulin. Yet in some patients it might well be better to tolerate higher-than-normal sugar levels rather than expose them to risk of too much insulin. Indeed, the New England Journal of Medicine last month published the results of a randomized study conducted on 6,000 patients that found that more patients died in the group where doctors were required to tightly control sugar levels compared to the one in which  they were allowed to follow a more flexible protocol.

The moral of the story? Medicine is more art than science and rigid rules that force doctors to ignore the trade offs in individual cases don't produce better overall outcomes - no matter how much bureaucratic backers of "performance based medicine" and "quality metrics" pretend otherwise.

Despite these emerging problems with this concept, the Obama administration is working with Congress to mandate that all Medicare payments be tied to "quality metrics." Why? Because ultimately, in my view, this concept has less to do with improving -- and and more to do with rationing -- care to control runaway costs. Standardized treatments, inevitably, cost less than unorthodox, experimental therapies - and pay-for-performance would incentivize the first and disincentivize - even penalize - the second.

In short, pay-for-performance is simply rationed care in sheep's clothing.

Welcome to 1984.

The French Patient

Posted on April 6, 2009, 9:59pm | Shikha Dalmia

The French health care system is the pride and joy of proponents of national health care. Unlike the horror that is the British National Health Care Service, it is claimed, the French have figured out a way to do it right. Their government, that can control neither its unemployment rate nor its (chronically striking) employed, is somehow still able to provide excellent care without waiting lines in a cost-effective way and without back-breaking taxes.

But if that sounds too good to be true, that's because it is. In today's Globe and Mail, Claire de Oliveria of the C.D. Howe Institute reveals that more than 92% of French residents supplement their stellar, government-provided health care with private insurance. "In fact, private insurance makes up 12.7 per cent of all health-care spending in France, a percentage exceeded only by the Netherlands and the United States." Why do the French have to turn to the rapacious private sector for help? Because most public health services require co-payments ranging from 10 to 40 per cent of the cost that, if patients had to cover solely out-of-pocket, they would likely get financially wiped out.

And despite this substantial infusion of private dollars, Oliveria notes, the French health care system has still been running deficits the past few years. "Indeed, the health system is the single largest factor driving France's overall budget deficit," he writes. "The impact will surely begin to affect the amount and quality of services provided."

So much for the French model!

Whole thing here.

Taxation by Mis-Representation

Posted on March 21, 2009, 5:26pm | Shikha Dalmia

Watch Norah O'Donnell nail California Congresswoman Maxine Waters for committing taxpayers to millions of dollars in AIG bonuses without even reading the stimulus provision.

Guaranteed to make you both laugh and cry at the same time.