Tough new drug law.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-1528

summarized: http://www.famm.org/pdfs/Sensenbrenner%20Bill%202005%20Summa ry%20LATEST.pdf

even more summarized: http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/action/wacmoreinfo.asp?it em=26179

This bad boy has made it through committee and is now up for debate.  It is long and dry, but it basically says that if you witness or know anyone doing drugs, you have 24 hours to report them or you get two years minimum.  It also has a sweet clause about having to assist in the investigation or else.

here's some of it:

      ``SEC. 425. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person
21 who witnesses or learns of a violation of sections
22 416(b)(2), 417, 418, 419, 420, 424, or 426 to fail to re-
23 port the offense to law enforcement officials within 24
24 hours of witnessing or learning of the violation and there-
25 after provide full assistance in the investigation, apprehen-


      HR 1528 IH
                                              13
1 sion, and prosecution of the person violating paragraph
2 (a).
3          ``(b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this
4 section shall be sentenced to not less than two years or
5 more than 10 years. If the person who witnesses or learns
6 of the violation is the parent or guardian, or otherwise
7 responsible for the care or supervision of the person under
8 the age of 18 or the incompetent person, such person shall
9 be sentenced to not less than three years or more than
10 20 years.''.

The snitch clause:

   ``(F) the Government certifies that the de-
8           ; ;  fendant has entered a timely plea of guilty to
9           ; ;  the most serious readily provable offense and
10         & ;nbs p; has otherwise done everything possible to assist
11         & ;nbs p; substantially in the investigation and prosecu-
12         & ;nbs p; tion of another person as set forth in subsection
13         & ;nbs p; (e), but was unable to so assist because the de-
14         & ;nbs p; fendant did not have sufficient information, or
15         & ;nbs p; had information already known to, or not useful
16         & ;nbs p; to the Government, but a defendant who pro-
17         & ;nbs p; vided the Government or the court with false,
18         & ;nbs p; misleading, or incomplete information, other-
19         & ;nbs p; wise obstructed the administration of justice, or
20         & ;nbs p; delayed affirmative efforts to assist substan-
21         & ;nbs p; tially beyond a time when such efforts could
22         & ;nbs p; have reasonably been useful to the Government
23         & ;nbs p; shall not be sentenced under this subsection.

Dom wrote: I thought jails were already overcrowded, this is only going to help it along. Even though if we have the room, I don't find anything wrong with these laws. And to DBib, it's everyone that involves themselves with drugs that contribute. Most people don't start off supplieing, so they have to start somewhere, and that's actually doing the drugs. Most tend to do both, supply and take the drugs. Also, jail time is not going to ruin these peoples lives, the drugs are ruining their lives.

It's called overkill and a concentration on a problem in which our government only has made worse, not better. Our law enforcement tactics have already failed, and now are laws are failing just as much.

First they have to catch the guy doing the drugs, then they have to prove you saw him do it. I don't see how this will pass, but hey, more power to them if it does. I don't typically hang around potheads, so I don't care. You're right Pariel, they need more enforcement on drugs and more strict penalties-there's way too many high-schoolers smoking pot.