HaCKeRz Kr0nlcKLeZ 1/HaCKeRz Kr0nlcKLeZ.iso/drugs/judges

Text File | 1996-05-06 | 9.4 KB | 182 lines

This article has been transcribed WITHOUT the permission of
_HIGH TIMES_ Magazine. I hope they don't mind.  8^)

For a subscription to _HIGH TIMES_ Magazine call 1-800-827-0228
or write to:
High Times Magazine
P.O. BOX 410
Mt. Morris, IL. 61054

Legend:
Words or phrases with _underscores_ were italics in the text.
Double -- dashes were solid dash lines in the text.
"Quotes", [brackets] and (parenthesies) were in the text.

All spelling errors (if any) are mine.
No emphasis of my own was added.

Sept. 92 issue------------------------------------------------------

                      JUDGES FOR LEGALIZATION

                         by Leslie Stackel


After witnessing a steady stream of drug law violators pass through
Santa Ana's courtrooms over the years --as they had during his
criminal court tenure-- county Judge James Gray finally reached an
ideological break point.
     Last April, Gray, who now serves on the civil court bench,
publicly declared the "War on Drugs" a failure and held a press
conference to announce the advocacy of an alternate solution --the
legalization of marijuana, cocaine and heroin.
    "The system just doesn't work," he told the press. "The nation's
strict drug laws cause more problems than the drugs themselves."
     In advocating legalization, Gray joins the swelling number of
federal, state and county justices calling for a reversal of our
national drug policy.
     Mounting frustration with a court system overloaded with cases
and unabated crime in urban areas has driven at least three federally
appointed justices from New York, Florida and Connecticut over the
past two years to break with their generally conservative colleagues
and take the unpopular stance of proposing decriminalization of
illicit drugs. Most risk carrer and reputation by doing so.
     While no signs of a full-fledged legalization movement by
members of the judiciary are visible yet, these "lone voices in the
wilderness," as one judge describes them, expect others to rally
around their cause in the future.
     "Twelve years of trying one case after another, and observing
that, even so, more and more drugs have illegally entered this
country, has finally made me wonder how I have not approached this
view sooner," comments US District Judge James Paine of West Palm
Beach, Florida, who favors legalization. He believes others will come
to the same conclusion.
     Today's crime rates are bound to spur public debate over
legalization, once more people understand the link between
prohibition and violence, claims Gray. "I hear gangs are now being
exported from Los Angeles to places like Las Vegas and small towns in
Iowa, and they're bringing drugs and violence along with them. The
more we talk about this, and get the word out, the more people won't
be able to look at the news the same way they have."
     Blasting current drug law as "ineffective" and "our present
policy toward prohibition [as] bankrupt, and worse, a cover-up" of
real truths about drug trafficking, Manhattan Federal Judge Robert
Sweet set the tone for a Harvard symposium on legalization last May,
where he acted as a keynote speaker along with James Paine.
     At the conference, both men pointed out how our legal system
actually perpetuates illegal drug use. Says Paine: "Some say the
current movement for legalization just represents frustration. Well,
frustration is a rational response to futility."
     He cited a long list of ills stemming from our current drug
policy, among them:
     --Crime: "Not only smugglers and dealers, but users often commit
crimes to pay for a habit...heroin, cocaine and other substances
would cost much less if they were legal."
     --Corruption: "Prohibition rasies prices which leads to
extraordinary profits, which are an irresistible temptation to police
and customs agents and others."
     --Criminal contact: "When you buy alcohol you don't have to deal
with criminals."
     --Abuse of civil liberties: "It is now apparent that the drug
authorities can punish American citizens by seizing their cars or
boats not after indictment, much less conviction, but after nothing
more than one allegation by a police officer. What has happened to
the Constitutionally guaranteed presumption of innocence?"
     A string of troubling statistics underscored his points, among
them the colossal cost of the Drug War to American taxpayers: Eight
years ago, the expenditure of government at _all_ levels --federal,
state and local-- to enforce drug laws was five billion dollars. This
year the federal cost alone will approach $12 billion. Too, our
federal jail population has soared from 24,000 in 1980 to about
65,000, with half of all felony indictments drug law violations. And
in New York City, 78% of all homicides are caused by territorial
disputes between drug dealers. Meanwhile, neither the cocaine supply
nor hard-core drug abuse is dwindling.
     "Despite the very serious penalties which have been imposed by
Congress fairly recently on drug traffickers, the huge potential
profits to successful smugglers are entirely sufficient to provide
substitutes to immediately step into the shoes of anyone who is
convicted and sent off to prison," explained Paine. Rarely is a
kingpin convicted, he said, and "many in prison are first-time
couriers and other bit players in drug deals."
     Given the facts, Sweet suggests that American government
completely rethink its drug strategy. For one thing, why not adopt
the "recommendation of President Nixon's commission on drug laws and
that of the National Academy of Sciences in 1982 and end the
crimialization of marijuana? That alone would take eight-hundred-
fifty-thousand arrests out of the system."
     Overall, he points out that, "prevention is cheaper than prison,
education more valuable than enforcement, cure more effective than
interdiction."
     On one point, at least --that of Congressionally mandated
minimum jail sentences for drug offenders--both pro-and anti-
legalization forces seem to be in agreement.
     "Even Rehnquist," explains Greg Porter of NORML, "has complained
about the newly passed mandates. They add thousands of cases to the
federal docket, many of which should be handled by state courts, and
at a time when state courts are being ordered to eliminate prison
overcrowding."
     Unfortunately but invariably, a strong backlash threatens to
weaken informed dissent. When Gray "outed" politically on the
legalization issue a local sherrif moved to have him barred from
handling drug trials. Attendees at a Federal Bar Association meeting
in Miami, where Judge Paine offcially revealed his opinions on the
matter, were reported as "shocked" and "stunned." One litigator,
Paine says, later suggested that he submit to a psychiatric
examination. And when Judge Sweet threw out charges against
defendants accused of wholesaling drug paraphernalia to head shops
last year, claiming the wording of the pertinent law was
"unconstitutionally vague," a Manhattan US attorney immediately said
he would review the ruling for a possible appeal.
     Others, too, have felt the sting of backlash, among them Federal
District Judge Warren Edington of Bridgeport, Connecticut; US
Magistrate Judge Ronald Rose of Santa Ana, California; and Municiple
Judge Henry Nelson of Ukiah, California, who has not spoken for
legalization, but took heat recently for the statement, "personal use
of marijuana doesn't bother me."
     The main argument posed by their detractors is one of ethics;
specifically, whether judicial canons have been violated. Some
believe a judge should not express personal views which could appear
to compromise impartiality.
     But according to Lisa Milord of the American Judicature Society,
judges are allowed to engage in public discourse on the law, provided
their personal views don't commit them to decisions on cases that
come before the court. This is a provision written into the current
(1990) Model Code of Ethics, the standard for state judicial codes,
recommended by the American Bar Association.
     "Many States haven't adopted the new code yet," says Milord. And
"a provision in the old code prohibited a _candidate_ for judicial
office from announcing views on disputed political and legal
issues...but that's been declared unconstitutional in some states,
because it's too broad."
     Gray admits he expected some negative response to his proposals,
adding that because of his stance, he will most likely "never again
be appointed any other judicial position." Yet, he told the press,
"this issue is so important to our society. Something had to be done.
Nothing was being said. And now something is."
     Along with the backlash, considerable support for Gray has also
surfaced. In an informal poll of Orange County judges, at least one-
third applauded Gray for his "courage" and "moxie," and said he had
the right to speak on the drug issue.
     Says Paine: "Somewhat surprisingly, I've gotten a lot of
feedback about [this issue], most of which has supported the position
I believe to be correct." He adds, "while substantial change in
federal statutes doesn't appear to be a practical likelihood at
present, I believe we will arrive at that point."


end of article-------------------------------------------------------

Oh, don't forget to go buy the Sept.92 issue of _HIGH TIMES_ at
your local newstand. It has a bunch more good stuff like this.

Disclaimers:
I don't work for _HIGH TIMES_.
I speak for myself and none other.