Thursday, 5/29/97 Criminalization of marijuana use out of step with state, people's rights DRUGS: Government "drug war" focuses on partisanship, imposes too severe penalties for offenders
By Colin Morris Last November, the voters of California succeeded in passing a proposition to legalize the medicinal use of marijuana as prescribed by doctors. The passing of Proposition 215 seemed to symbolize a promising trend toward knowledge of the substance. However, after reading an article by Eric Schlosser in the April issue of Atlantic Monthly, I have been shocked with the reality of what is occurring elsewhere. Many of us are aware of the idiocy of our legal system treating marijuana offenders worse than violent criminals. I doubt, however, that many Americans are truly conscious of how some peoples' lives have been shattered because of current practices in the so-called "drug war." Now, about 15 years since its beginning, the "war on drugs" has become a war on personal freedom and toes the line of authoritarianism. On the brink of the 21st century, this is not a good sign for preserving our future, nor that of democracy. In 1989, a small business owner and Vietnam veteran, Douglas Lamar Gray, who had only petty crimes on his record was sentenced to life in prison without parole after buying one pound of weed for himself and friends. He made the purchase from a convicted felon working as an informant for a local Alabama task force. Gray's wife, left with a 2-year-old son and no source of income, unsuccessfully attempted suicide. The informant was paid $100. Life sentences for non-violent marijuana offenses exist in 15 states . In Montana, the sentence can be imposed for growing a single plant or selling a single joint. But such martial law is not nearly as horrific as that on the federal level. Stiff federal policies against drugs arose in 1982 under President Reagan. The largest leap forward came in 1986 with the Anti-Drug Abuse Act which established mandatory minimum sentences in drug offense cases and transferred the power to impose such sentences from judges to prosecutors. Legislation for the bill was hastily pushed through Congress, inspired by the recent passing of a standout basketball player and first-round draft pick of the Boston Celtics. Len Bias died on June 17, 1986 due to heart failure caused by crack cocaine. In drafting the bill, the prime factor for necessitating a mandatory minimum sentence was the quantity of drugs involved in the crime. As Eric Sterling, then assistant counsel for the House Subcommittee of Crime, states, "Numbers were being picked out of thin air." Less than three months after being drafted, the bill was signed by President Reagan. One result of this legislation was the conviction of Donald Clark, a watermelon farmer in Florida found guilty of growing marijuana. He was sentenced to probation by the state court, then re-tried five years later under federal law and sentenced to life in prison. In addition to severe incarceration penalties, the government may also seize all possessions without due process. In 1994, $1.5 billion worth of assets were seized during routine searches under the guise of "lawful forfeiture." (In 80 percent of those cases, the owners were never even charged with a crime.) If these facts shock you, the next ones will make you sick. The allure for seizing property is that the assets are divided among the various law enforcement agencies involved who can then sell those assets for profit. Thirty-one drug agents raided the property of Donald Scott in Malibu, Calif. after a tip that marijuana was being cultivated there. None was found but Scott was accidentally killed in the raid. An investigation later found that an appraisal of his $5 million property had been obtained five weeks prior. In order to lessen their penalty, many defendants will aid in the prosecution of other offenders. (They're sometimes actually rewarded with portions up to 25 percent of seized assets.) The brunt of punishment then trickles down to the least guilty party with no information to sell. For those lacking valuable information there is a black market where drug leads can secretly be bought. A prominent defense attorney from Kansas, Tom Dawson, has found that professional "vendors" will charge fees of up to $250,000. Other issues include the over-crowding of prisons and the failure to stem the tide of drug use. As to state prisons, Pennsylvania's prison population has doubled over the past decade and the system now operates at 54 percent above capacity. If incarceration rates continue at the same pace, a new prison will have to be opened every 90 days. As far as the effectiveness of drug laws, teenage use of marijuana has roughly doubled since 1992. And its availability, according to teens, has hardly diminished either. From 1982, when Reagan declared his war on drugs, to 1994, the number of teenagers reporting that they could easily obtain marijuana decreased from 88.5 to 85.5 percent - just 3 percent in 12 years. What this last issue seems to reflect is that our country is more concerned with enforcing punishment than with finding a remedy to widespread drug use and related crime. I can understand the naive perception of many that the more "taboo" drugs are portrayed, better is the chance of winning the "war on drugs." The U.S. government, however, with greater access to research and statistical information than any other organized body, cannot justify its actions with such naivete. Essentially, the only explanation for existing policies is the advancement of partisan interests. Reagan's anti-drug campaign was initiated in response to mounting pressure from conservative parents' groups. Tip O'Neill's avid support behind the Anti-Drug Abuse Act was a Democratic counter to this effort. And the Clinton administration's escalated law enforcement is an attempt to discredit its image - painted by Republicans - as being soft on drugs. (Ironically, Democrats could combat the "tax and spend" perception by reducing the $2.4 billion spent annually processing marijuana arrests.) These tactics, while incapable of eliciting progress, appear as valiant efforts to constituents. Reverting back to Proposition 215 and its potential for success, we, as Californians, need to recognize the main principle involved - states' rights. I never thought the issues of Federalism and anti-Federalism from the 18th century would be at all prominent in the modern era, but it seems as if they now are. There may be no threat of disunion but there is a very real threat of the federal government abusing the rights of those citizens whose respective states have sought to protect. When people suffering from AIDS, cancer or multiple sclerosis are imprisoned for using marijuana as a treatment, who has committed the injustice? Pertaining to marijuana laws as a whole it is imperative that we, as Americans, demand a more effective and compassionate approach to the drug problem. One method proposed by Senator Phil Gramm involved the denial of welfare benefits to drug offenders. Modified and later passed, this proposal is good because it punishes by taking away privileges, which laws like the Anti-Drug Abuse Act do not. (FREEDOM is not a privilege; It is an inalienable right!) I see no choice but for further solutions to embrace the decriminalization of marijuana. I shall not debate the ethics of casual use of the drug. I will merely state that it has never been linked as the sole cause of a single death and no long-term detrimental effects beyond depression have ever been proved. Furthermore, no proof has been found that law enforcement discourages use. (For evidence of the contrary one need only take the examples of the Netherlands and Sweden.) The facilitating of phenomenal business profits among dealers and state and federal organizations, pooled with deprivation of citizens' constitutional rights, is the evil which must be targeted and struck down. This is only made possible when marijuana is legalized. Previous Daily Bruin Stories: Battle over legal prescription of medical marijuana still raging, Jan 21, 1997