Windsor Legislators Strike Back at Douglas's Judicial Power Grab

reefer policy madness (0.00 / 0)

The administration is pushing a line of malarkey about Robert Sand acting outside the mainstream. It is another example of Republican policy based on press releases and publicity stuntys rather than reality.

This is how the press first reported the Sand/Douglas dynamic:

Sand is an outspoken critic of drug laws that he considers extreme. Sand has said for some time that he thought many illegal drugs should be decriminalized and a different approach used to help people who use the drugs.

Sand is standing by his decision in the case of Martha Davis. He said most first-time marijuana cases are sent to the court diversion program. If a person successfully completes the program their records will be cleared.

"If cases of interpersonal violence go to (court) diversion, why shouldn't a case of possession of marijuana for a woman with no prior criminal history?" Sand told WPTZ.

"It's troublesome to me that as a result of a decision in one case the governor is seeking to redirect law enforcement energies," Sand said.

"I don't control the police, and can't prevent the governor from whatever directive he wants," said Sand. "All I can do is promise the people of Windsor County I have their interest and safety in mind. Our approach to illegal drugs is not working at an optimal level and the governor needs to confront that reality."

Douglas said that debate belongs in the Legislature.

The Governor's rational is bogus.  The legislature already had the debate.  Douglas is passing the buck (to the legislature) while taking legal and factual liberties with this case to score political points.  The point is, however, the legislature already passed the buck to Mr. Sand when it gave him the authority to decide the most effective way to protect the public health safety and welfare.

By all accounts, Sand is not only doing a good job, but no one is doing a better job either. The voters in the community who elected Mr. Sand to exercise the authority given to him by the legislature are the ultimate authority to whom Mr. Sand should answer.  I trust public servants such as Mr. Sand answering to their voters making critical law enforcement decisions in light of a well-vetted and locally accepted approaches to public safety.  When prosecutors make decisions based on Gov. Douglas' most recent publicity stunt, the result will be an arbitrary legal justice system. 

Had this happened in any other county, diversion for a first time non-violent offender could easily have been a non-event.  However, Gov. Douglas is picking a political fight because of Mr. Sand's well-respected leadership in tackling the horrible toll Vermont's substance use laws are taking on our public and private institutions as well as our overall state resources and public health. 

Mr. Sand's tempered approach is a reasoned solution to a systemic problem worsened by state laws that criminalize substance abuse rather than treat it pragmatically as the public health issue that it is.  Mr. Sand has wisely explained and accepted public vetting of his approach and the voters have, in turn, accepted his office's policies and his discretion consistent with state law. 

Gov. Douglas' media response to this one particular case of unlicensed agricultural cultivation has been to pre-judge hundreds of future cases for the benefit of a press conference.  Knee-jerk and thoughtless misdirection of state resources puts countless lives at risk and ignores the foundational public health, safety and welfare responsibilities that are the basis for our criminal justice system. 

Gov. Douglas is attempting to replace Mr. Sand's harm reduction model of handling illegal crop cultivation with a harm maximization and resource squandering approach.  Douglas' approach has a forty year history of economic, social, public health and public safety failure. Looks like he pretty much covered his bases by keeping that approach going.


sláinte,
cl

-- Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

---

by: Caoimhin Laochdha @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 00:31:02 AM UTC

I think it might feel good... (0.00 / 0)

...even be downright cathartic to make this an argument about pot policy. But that's the table Douglas has set, and I don't wanna play (mixed metaphor there).

I think we should take it up a notch out of his control, and keep making this about a naked grab for control across the separation of powers, a la Bush.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 00:54:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then allow me to edit (0.00 / 0)

forget about all the policy stuff.  It's too heady for the fifth floor of the Pavilion and beyond the scope of this post as well.

I agree with the separation of power issue and here is another part of that dynamic. In addition to the power grab, it is also a power shift:

"This debate belongs in the legislature."

This is effectively a legislative veto of preexisting law AND a stab at the judicial system.  It's a twofer.

The legislature has already delegated the authority to the county prosecuters. By saying the issue belongs "in the legislature," Douglas is effectively saying "I don't like the existing legal structure, and I'm going to ignore existing law and I challenge the legislature to re-write existing law." By bypassing a county prosecutor, he is upending the judicial system as well.

sláinte,
cl

-- Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

---

by: Caoimhin Laochdha @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 01:29:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Chen's (0.00 / 0)

in Rutland County and they couldn't reach Nitka.

---

by: vermontress @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 02:30:37 AM UTC

Shoulda used a lifeline (0.00 / 0)

From the leg site, emphasis added:

RUTLAND-WINDSOR-1 (1)

  Bridgewater, Chittenden, Killington, Mendon

*  D  Chen, Harry L.

That miss makes me a wee bit dubious about yer other info, but I'll take your word for it.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 02:51:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

JOE SIX PACK (0.00 / 0)

It is interesting that Douglas's press secretary Jason Gibb's asked the question, How would "Joe-Six Pack," respond about the diversion? Is that what the governor's official-speak is for the Vermont public. It just shows us more of how much contempt Douglas really has in the people of this state. Political Rhetoric 101- speaking nonsense without accomplishing anything.

---

by: RobbKidd @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 02:43:42 AM UTC

Priorities (0.00 / 0)

The letter that the legislators wrote to Douglas and Odum put up here said it best: "Vermont has recently experienced its worst week of violent crime in our history...." Four people died in two separate murder/suicides with this or that gun used as the means, and one went down to a knife and Douglas has said nothing about it.  Nothing.  No comments about how easily one can get a gun, violence, the causes of violence (none of them were drug related) etc. nothing at all. Just like a so what.  Yet, he does this with Sand, ignoring the four VErmonters that went down in a hail of gunfire to make a point about a woman near the age of retirement growing a substance that does not cause cancer like cigarettes do to try and make press points or look like he's tough on drugs? 

I read a while ago that one of the reasons our drug laws are so fascistic is because, like almost everything else, the GOP has privatized prisons and they need inmates to feed into them to turn a profit.  Are they privatized in Vermont?  Just a question and a thought. 

When you wake up each morning look around you.  It might be the last time you get to do it.  

---

by: Watercloset @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 07:32:50 AM UTC