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.