From: [b--r--e] at [rcf.rsmas.miami.edu] (Charlie Byrne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Mandatory Minimums - NY Times - July 19, 1993
Date: 19 Jul 1993 13:30:01 GMT

In Monday July 19 1993 New York Times, there are 5 letters to editor in
response to last weeks full page op-eds by Senator Phil Gramm (D-Texas)
(supporting increased mandatory minimums) and Federal Judge Jack Weinstein
(calling for national commission to develop new drug strategies).

Letter 1 from President of Phoenix House (rehab center in New York) says
problem goes beyond crime and punishment; answers not in our willingness 
to punish or condone but to provide adequate treatment resources. 

Letter 2 from Marc Mauer, Asst Director, Sentencing Project, Washington. Says
Gramm's article full of baloney, instead of raising mandatory minimums, time to
"send a different message to communities devastated by unemployment, drug abuse,
and poverty.

Letter 3, Rep. Don Edwards, Chair, Sub Committee on Civil and Constitutional
Rights, Wash DC. Basically rips Gramm's arguments to shreds in a wonderful
manner. Spending billions on prison, crime rate going up, drug use unchanged or
increasing. Policies racist. He has introduced HR 957 to repeal all Federal
mandatory minimum sentences.

Letter 4, Franklin Zimring, William Simon Professor of Law, University of
California, makes Gramm look and sound like a fool. Gramm had said that each
extra year of druggies in prison saves the public $430,000 (since there is no
more crime) and that this was a "brilliant allocation of resources". Zimring
writes: "If the senator is right, he has solved the deficit. The number of
Americans behind bars in 1993 is about 700,000 greater than in 1980. At
$430,000 per capita, we are now saving $300 billion a year through extra prison
and jail use. This leads to two questions: Where is the money? And is Senator
Gramm always this silly, or does criminal justice policy bring out the worst in
him?"

Letter 5, private citizen M. Holt, Meyer writes that everyone seems to be
ignoring alcohol and gives good alcohol .vs. illegal drug stats. He concludes
with this: "And how can we persist in the illusion that we are engaged in a
"war" against drugs when we America is in love with them".

I'd say it's Another good day for the good guys.