From: Jim Rosenfield <[j n r] at [igc.apc.org]>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Date: 04 Jul 94 14:59 PDT
Subject: Judge Gray in Police News
Our Drug Laws Have Failed
By James P. Gray, California Superior Court Judge
In Police News, Spring 94
What we are doing is not working We have focused our attention, effort
and resources upon intercepting heroin, cocaine and marijuana, and
incarcerating those who sell and use them. We have been increasingly
successful in seizing even larger quantities of these drugs, con`vichog
greater numbers of defendants who are involved with them and sentencing
those defendants to even longer terms in our jails and prisons.
Nevertheless, the magnitude of the problem created by making these drugs
illegal continues to grow. The only practical resolution available to us
is to revise our laws so that the use by adults of heroin, cocaine and
marijuana, and the purchase by adults of these drugs generically at
licensed commercial pharmacies is legal.
Although under this proposal the purchase and use by adults of heroin,
cocaine and marijuana from the pharmacies would be legal, the sale,
transfer or furnishing hy anyone of any quantity of these drugs to
minors would he severely punished. Also, present laws concerning public
drunkenness, driving a motor vehicle while under the influence, etc.,
would not he changed, and the unlicensed sale of these drugs would
remain a violation of the law. The price of the drugs at the pharmacies
would be set at an amount that would be continually adjusted so as to
undercut the sales price of any illegal sale "on the street." This would
do away with the financial incentive to sell them illegally.
Without a doubt, some people will continue to buy and abuse these drugs
under this proposal. However, since there would be no incentive to
"push" these drugs, they would never be advertised or "on sale", and
free samples would never be given to anyone, including non-users in
order to get them "hooked", etc., the usage should not be above the
present rate, and probably, after a possible initial surge, would be
materially reduced.
All of the other results under this plan would be positive. Crime would
he materially reduced. For example, there is no violence now in the
manufacture, distribution and purchase of alcohol. Also, for those who
would continue to burglarize in support of their drug habit, they would
do so less often because of the reduced price. Since part of the sales
price at the pharmacies would be a tax, resources for the education
about and treatment of drug abuse would he substantially increased.
Police and society's other pressing needs. No new taxes would be needed
for jail or courthouse construction. Lower income areas would be
reclaimed from the drug sellers. Monies obtained by juvenile gangs and
other organized crime would be decreased. Violence and corruption in our
country and abroad would be significantly decreased. Overdoses and other
medical problems from the usage of these drttgs would be reduced because
the Food and Drug Administration would ensure that the strengths of
these drugs would be accurately set forth on the labels. Drug treatment
would be encouraged because of warning labels outside, and literature
inside the packages, including toll-free numbers to call for more
information. Clean needles would reduce the spread of AIDS.
Many good, honest and intelligent people may disagree with this proposal
on moral and/or other reasonable grounds. In addition, other people who
have vested interests in the present system may also oppose this plan.
However, in my opinion, the choice we have now is further to escalate
our efforts and the spending of our limited resources in a losing or
lost "war on drugs," or to face the reality that is upon us and legalize
these drugs under a plan of regulated distribution such as this one. The
sooner we make the change, the sooner we can stop the bleeding.
Views from the Front
George Schultz, the former Secretary of State for Reagan, says
legalization would destroy dealers profits and remove their incentive to
get young people addicted. He concedes, however, that such a proposal is
unpopular.
"Sometimes at a reception or cocktail party I advance these views and
people head for somebody else," says Schultz. "Everybody is scared to
talk about it. No politician wants to say what I just said, not for a
minute."
Patrick Murphy:
We over rely on law enforcement and interdiction. Only about 30% of our
spending is on treatment, prevention and education. In Canada the
balance is about the exact opposite.
Politicians get in a bidding war over who can talk the toughest. It
started when I was police commissioner of New York when Rockefeller was
governor.
A lot of people have gone to prison since then and drug abuse has gotten
worse. I think NAVPO's effort to show police officers another way to
look at this issue is a commendable and an enlightened approach.
Jerry V. Willimas, Former Chief of Police, Washington D.C.:
Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders' suggestion that we study the idea of
decriminalizing illicit drugs took me back to the early 1970s, when
people were talking seriously about decriminalizing marijuana. One
private conversation from that time stuck in my mind. "Personally, I
don't think that marijuana is any more dangerous than my favorite
psychoactive drug, the martini," the statement went. " But I'm afraid
that decriminalization would send a signal to young people that it is
all right to use it."
The words are not exact, for I did not make notes, but that is the crux
of what President Nixon said to me some two decades ago. Here we are 20
years later, and I wonder if anyone received the signal Mr. Nixon was
talking about. In 1992, local and state law enforcement agencies
reported nearly a million arrests for drugs violations. Drug offenders
make up one-third of the felony convictions in the state courts.
In a nation where three-quarters of all robberies go unsolved and where
violent offenders go free on bail awaiting trial dates on overburdened
court dockets, we choose to clog the system with drug offenders.