« A distinct project for 2025 focused on criminal justice reform | Main | US Sentencing Commission this morning conducting "Public Hearing on Retroactivity" for its proposed 2024 guideline amendments »

July 14, 2024

Latest episode of "Drugs on the Docket" podcast engages with David Pozen and his new book, The Constitution of the War on Drugs

350x350bbIn this post from last month, I highlighted that the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center at The Ohio State University had started releasing episodes from Season Two of the "Drugs on the Docket" podcast.  (All of the first season's episodes are all still available via Apple Podcasts and YouTube, where you can also find prior Season 2 episodes as well.)   Now, as detailed on this podcast webpage, we just recently released the fourth episode of this new season. which I consider absolutely fascinating on a number of fronts because it covers the intersections of constitutional right and jurisprudence and modern drug enforcement law and policy.  Here is the episode's description along with some notable show notes from the podcast website:

Season 2 Episode 4 – “The Constitution of the War on Drugs” with David Pozen

In this episode, host Hannah Miller and co-host Douglas Berman, executive director of the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center, speak with author and professor David Pozen to discuss his new book, The Constitution of the War on Drugs. In this groundbreaking work, Pozen provides a comparative history lesson on U.S. court cases in which constitutional arguments for drug rights were or were not employed, explains how the Constitution helped to legitimate and entrench punitive drug policy, and offers a constitutional roadmap to drug policy reform that may yet prevail in an increasingly originalist-leaning federal court system.

David Pozen is Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School.

Show notes:

Because there is so much richness in this podcast discussion and throughout the book, I am disinclined to here highlight any one aspect of the constitutional discussions. And yet, for sentencing fans, I will still flag that Chapter 4 of the book focuses on punishment issues and the Eighth Amendment, closing with this observation and teaser:

Even as American jurists have insisted that scrutinizing the severity of prison sentences is an invitation to lawlessness, the rest of the world has determined that a significantly more ambitious and demanding version of proportionality — one that eschews categorical rules in favor of structured balancing — is a foundation stone of the rule of law. Applying this version of proportionality, apex courts in Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, and South America have limited the penalties that may be applied to a growing set of drug users.  In the concluding chapter, I will return to these cases and to the question of what they might teach the United States.

July 14, 2024 at 09:45 AM | Permalink

Comments

i’ll get the ball rolling: Hey Federalist: at least the would-be assassin got to exercise his precious Second Amendment rights!

Posted by: Seriously? | Jul 14, 2024 1:41:42 PM

Seriously? --

Doug has asked that commenters stay on the topic of the thread. There are obviously criminal law ramifications of the scurrilous attempted assassination, which killed at least one person in the crowd, and I think it likely that Doug will have a thread about yesterday's events soon.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 14, 2024 3:49:07 PM

Thanks, Bill, for encouraging folks to stay on topic. But, unless and until it becomes a sentencing/CJ reform story, I doubt I will be posting about yesterday's horrible incident of political violence.

Posted by: Doug B | Jul 14, 2024 8:47:39 PM

Since the shooter is dead, there isn't much to talk about, unless we want to start charging Morning Joe with crimes. (Which I don't)

Posted by: federalist | Jul 15, 2024 10:25:04 AM

federalist --

I'm kind of remembering that in one of these school shooting cases, both parents were convicted and pretty harshly sentenced for facilitating their kid's access to the murder weapon. So that could theoretically be on the table here.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 15, 2024 1:55:09 PM

Bill,

That was Ethan Crumbley. The difference is it was a straw purchase and Ethan was showing nutjob tendencies. Neither seem to be the case with Crooks at this juncture. Obviously, that can change,

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jul 15, 2024 3:45:52 PM

TarlsQtr --

Yup, we know very little about Crooks and even less about his parents.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 15, 2024 4:08:42 PM

Given the reports about how incessantly the Crooks kid was bullied, and given how so many people who were bullied like this have turned into mass shooters, I would hope that parents, schools, churches, EVERYONE, would encourage kids to be a little less cruel to their peers.

Posted by: Seriously? | Jul 16, 2024 3:47:28 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB