IGHT years ago Douglas Lamar Gray bought a pound of marijuana in a room at the Econo Lodge in Decatur, Alabama. He planned to keep a few ounces for himself and sell the rest to some friends. Gray was a Vietnam veteran with an artificial leg. As a young man, he'd been convicted of a number of petty crimes, none serious enough to warrant a prison sentence. He had stayed out of trouble for a good thirteen years. He now owned a business called Gray's Roofing and Remodeling Service. He had a home, a wife, and a two-year-old son. The man who sold him the drug, Jimmy Wilcox, was a felon just released from prison, with more than thirty convictions on his record. Wilcox was also an informer employed by the Morgan County Drug Task Force. The pound of marijuana had been supplied by the local sheriff's department, as part of a sting. After paying Wilcox $900 for the pot, which seemed like a real bargain, Douglas Lamar Gray was arrested and charged with "trafficking in cannabis." He was tried, convicted, fined $25,000, sentenced to life in prison without parole, and sent to the maximum-security penitentiary in Springville, Alabama -- an aging, overcrowded prison filled with murderers and other violent inmates. He remains there to this day. Under the stress of his imprisonment Gray's wife attempted suicide with a pistol, survived the gunshot, and then filed for divorce. Jimmy Wilcox, the informer, was paid $100 by the county for his services in the case.

Gray's punishment, although severe, is by no means unusual in the United States. The laws of at least fifteen states now require life sentences for certain nonviolent marijuana offenses. In Montana a life sentence can be imposed for growing a single marijuana plant or selling a single joint. Under federal law the death penalty can be imposed for growing or selling a large amount of marijuana, even if it is a first offense. The rise in marijuana use among American teenagers became a prominent issue during last year's presidential campaign, fueled by Republican accusations that President Bill Clinton was "soft on drugs." Teenage marijuana use has indeed grown considerably since 1992; by one measure it has doubled. But that increase cannot be attributed to any slackening in the enforcement of the nation's marijuana laws. In fact, the number of Americans arrested each year for marijuana offenses has increased by 43 percent since Clinton took office. There were roughly 600,000 marijuana-related arrests nationwide in 1995 -- an all-time record. More Americans were arrested for marijuana offenses during the first three years of Clinton's presidency than during any other three-year period in the nation's history. More Americans are in prison today for marijuana offenses than at any other time in our history. And yet teenage marijuana use continues to grow.

The war on drugs, launched by President Ronald Reagan in 1982, began as an assault on marijuana. Its effects are now felt throughout America's criminal-justice system. In 1980 there were almost twice as many violent offenders in federal prison as drug offenders. Today there are far more people in federal prison for marijuana crimes than for violent crimes. More people are now incarcerated in the nation's prisons for marijuana than for manslaughter or rape.

In an era when the fear of violence pervades the United States, small-time pot dealers are being given life sentences while violent offenders are being released early, only to commit more crimes. The federal prison system and thirty-eight state prison systems are now operating above their rated capacity. Attempts to reduce dangerous prison overcrowding have been hampered by the nation's drug laws. Prison cells across the country are filled with nonviolent drug offenders whose mandatory-minimum sentences do not allow for parole. At the same time, violent offenders are routinely being granted early release. A recent study by the Justice Department found that in 1992 violent offenders on average were released after serving less than half of their sentences. A person convicted of murder in the United States could expect a punishment of less than six years in prison. A person convicted of kidnapping could expect about four years. Another Justice Department study revealed that almost a third of all violent offenders who are released from prison will be arrested for another violent crime within three years. No one knows how many violent crimes these released inmates commit without ever being caught. In 1992 the average punishment for a violent offender in the United States was forty-three months in prison. The average punishment, under federal law, for a marijuana offender that same year was about fifty months in prison.

Even legislation aimed at reducing violent crime has been subverted by the legal underpinnings of the drug war. According to a report by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, California's much-heralded "three strikes, you're out" law has imprisoned twice as many people for marijuana offenses as for murder, rape, and kidnapping combined.

The vehemence of marijuana's opponents and the harsh punishments routinely administered to marijuana offenders cannot be explained by a simple concern for public health. Paraplegics, cancer patients, epileptics, people with AIDS, and people suffering from multiple sclerosis have in recent years been imprisoned for using marijuana as medicine. The attack on marijuana, since its origins early in this century, has in reality been a cultural war -- a moral crusade in defense of traditional American values. The laws used to fight marijuana are now causing far more harm to those values than the drug itself. In order to eliminate marijuana use, state and federal legislators have sanctioned an enormous increase in prosecutorial power, the emergence of a class of professional informers, and the widespread confiscation of private property by the government without trial -- legal weapons reminiscent of those used in the former Soviet-bloc nations. The long prison sentences given to growers and dealers have pushed marijuana prices skyward, creating a domestic industry whose annual revenues now rival those of cotton, soybeans, or corn. U.S. public officials, like their counterparts in Mexico, Colombia, and Bolivia, are being corrupted with drug money. Millions of ordinary Americans have been arrested for marijuana offenses in the past decade, and hundreds of thousands have been imprisoned, yet marijuana use is increasing and has regained its status as a symbol of youthful rebellion. Instead of debating the wisdom of our current policies, members of Congress and of the Administration are competing to see who can appear toughest on drugs. For years the war on drugs has been driven by political concerns, without regard to its consequences. But at the state and local levels, where the costs of that war are most keenly felt and unlikely alliances have begun to form, there are signs that madness may give way to common sense.

THE 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act marked a profound shift not only in America's drug-control policy but also in the workings of its criminal-justice system. The bill greatly increased the penalties for federal drug offenses. More important, it established mandatory-minimum sentences, transferring power from federal judges to prosecutors. The mandatory minimums were based not on an individual's role in a crime but on the quantity of drugs involved. Judges in such cases could no longer reduce a prison term out of mercy or compassion. Prosecutors were given the authority to decide whether a mandatory-minimum sentence applied.

This new law did not represent the culmination of a careful deliberative process. Nor did it reflect the thinking of the nation's best legal minds. The mandatory-minimum provisions were written and enacted in a matter of weeks without a single public hearing. The most important drug legislation in a generation -- the enforcement of which would more than triple the size of the federal-prison population and whose sentencing philosophy would influence state drug laws across the country -- was prompted by the death of a popular basketball player shortly before a congressional election.

Len Bias was a local hero in Washington, D.C., clean-cut and all-American, a University of Maryland basketball star who had been drafted by the Boston Celtics at the age of twenty-two. On June 17, 1986, Bias attended a ceremony in Boston to sign a contract with the Celtics. Two days later he died of heart failure, allegedly caused by crack cocaine. When Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill returned to Boston for the Fourth of July congressional recess, everyone seemed to be talking about the death of the Celtics' first-round draft pick. As fears of crack cocaine swept the nation, O'Neill grew worried that the Democratic Party might be labeled soft on drugs. He returned to Washington in mid-July determined to pass an omnibus drug-control bill before the upcoming election. The legislation had to be drafted within a month. Eric E. Sterling, who was then the assistant counsel for the House Subcommittee on Crime, recently told me that staff members scrambled to assemble a bill. The process of selecting drug quantities to trigger the mandatory-minimum sentences was far from scientific, according to Sterling: "Numbers were being picked out of thin air."

The drug-control bill left the subcommittee in mid-August, while many academics and government officials were away on vacation. There had been little time to study the potential costs of the legislation or its ramifications for the criminal-justice system. In the absence of public hearings there had been no input from federal judges, prison authorities, or drug-abuse experts. President and Mrs. Reagan were calling for tough new drug-control measures, and House Democrats rushed to provide them. Only sixteen congressmen voted against the bill, which passed in the Senate by a voice vote. Reagan signed the final version of the bill on October 27, just a week before Election Day.

In Smoke and Mirrors, which was published last year, Dan Baum, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, gives a definitive account of the politics surrounding Reagan's war on drugs. Conservative parents' groups opposed to marijuana had helped to ignite the Reagan Revolution. Marijuana symbolized the weakness and permissiveness of a liberal society; it was held responsible for the slovenly appearance of teenagers and their lack of motivation. Carlton Turner, Reagan's first drug czar, believed that marijuana use was inextricably linked to "the present young-adult generation's involvement in anti-military, anti-nuclear power, anti-big business, anti-authority demonstrations." A public-health approach to drug control was replaced by an emphasis on law enforcement. Drug abuse was no longer considered a form of illness; all drug use was deemed immoral, and punishing drug offenders was thought to be more important than getting them off drugs. The drug war soon became a bipartisan effort, supported by liberals and conservatives alike. Nothing was to be gained politically by defending drug abusers from excessive punishment.

Drug-control legislation was proposed, almost like clockwork, during every congressional-election year in the 1980s. Election years have continued to inspire bold new drug-control schemes. On September 25 of last year Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich introduced legislation demanding either a life sentence or the death penalty for anyone caught bringing more than two ounces of marijuana into the United States. Gingrich's bill attracted twenty-six co-sponsors, though it failed to reach the House floor. A few months earlier Senator Phil Gramm had proposed denying federal welfare benefits, including food stamps, to anyone convicted of a drug crime, even a misdemeanor. Gramm's proposal was endorsed by a wide variety of senators -- including liberals such as Barbara Boxer, Tom Harkin, Patrick Leahy, and Paul Wellstone. A revised version of the amendment, limiting the punishment to people convicted of a drug felony, was incorporated into the welfare bill signed by President Clinton during the presidential campaign. Possessing a few ounces of marijuana is a felony in most states, as is growing a single marijuana plant. As a result, Americans convicted of a marijuana felony, even if they are disabled, may no longer receive federal welfare or food stamps. Convicted murderers, rapists, and child molesters, however, will continue to receive these benefits.

   .........  The rest of this article is available from the Atlantic Monthly....

NORML's Policy Statement

                                         Recreational Use

                                   "Penalties against drug use should not
                                   be more damaging to an individual
                                   than use of the drug itself. Nowhere is
                                   this more clear than in the laws against
                                   possession of marijuana in private for
                                   personal use."
                                   President Jimmy Carter, August 2, 1977

                                       It's time to stop arresting responsible
                                   marijuana smokers. Millions of
                                   Americans use marijuana; few abuse it.
                                   Arresting these otherwise law-abiding
                                   citizens serves no legitimate purpose;
                                   extends government into inappropriate
                                   areas of our private lives; and causes
                                   enormous harm to the lives, careers and
                                   families of the more than 500,000
                                   marijuana smokers arrested each year in
                                   this country.

                                       Marijuana smokers are no different
                                   from their nonsmoking peers, except for
                                   their marijuana use. Like most
                                   Americans, they are responsible citizens
                                   who work hard, raise families,
                                   contribute to their communities, and
                                   want a safe, crime-free neighborhood in
                                   which to live. They are not part of the
                                   crime problem and should not be treated
                                   like criminals.

                                       Responsible marijuana use causes no
                                   harm to society and should be of no
                                   interest to state and federal governments.
                                   Today, far more harm is caused by
                                   marijuana prohibition than by the use of
                                   marijuana itself.

                                   Decriminalization

                                       NORML supports the removal of all
                                   penalties for the private possession of
                                   marijuana by adults, cultivation for
                                   personal use, and the casual nonprofit
                                   transfers of small amounts. NORML
                                   also supports the development of a
                                   legally controlled market for marijuana.

                                   Harm Reduction

                                       All drugs, including marijuana, can be
                                   abused. Our marijuana policies should
                                   discourage irresponsible use, including
                                   use by adolescents.

                                       The best way to prevent drug abuse is
                                   with honest, credible and factual drug
                                   education. Only in a climate in which
                                   marijuana is viewed from a public health
                                   perspective, instead of a criminal justice
                                   perspective, can prevention efforts be
                                   effective.

                                   Reasonable Restrictions

                                       As with alcohol consumption,
                                   marijuana smoking should be limited to
                                   adults. Driving or operating heavy
                                   machinery after smoking marijuana
                                   should be prohibited. NORML's
                                   "Principles of Responsible Cannabis
                                   Use" defines acceptable conduct
                                   (available upon request).

Legalization, Decriminalization, and Harm Reduction

             excerpted from:  The National Drug Control Strategy:  2001 Annual Report

                               Given the negative impact of drugs on society, the
                               overwhelming majority of Americans reject illegal drug use.
                               Indeed, millions of citizens who once used drugs have turned
                               their backs on such self-destructive behavior. Study after
                               study confirms that Americans want to guard against the
                               risks of these deadly substances. A 1998 poll of voters
                               conducted by the Family Research Council found that eight of
                               ten respondents rejected the legalization of drugs like
                               cocaine and heroin, with seven out of ten in strong
                               opposition. Moreover, when asked if they supported making
                               these drugs legal in the same way that alcohol is, 82 percent
                               said they opposed legalization. Similarly, a 2000 Gallup poll
                               found that 64 percent of Americans oppose the legalization
                               of marijuana.12 Many drug users enter treatment every year
                               to help recover from chronic abuse of marijuana and other
                               so-called “soft” drugs. The idea of legalizing even these
                               substances overlooks the dangers they pose.

                               Decriminalization means that although drug use and
                               possession would remain illegal, the penalties against these
                               offenses would be so minimal–similar to those against
                               jaywalking–that drug use would de facto be legal. In 1975 the
                               Alaska Supreme Court decriminalized small amounts of
                               marijuana for personal use. Even though marijuana remained
                               illegal for children, the perception that marijuana was harmful
                               decreased, and marijuana use rates among Alaskan youth
                               increased significantly. Decriminalization ignores the facts
                               that drug use affects the brain, may lead to addiction, causes
                               untold misery to the user and his/her family, and costs society
                               $110 billion annually in health and social costs.

                               Harm reduction is a theory that says because use of illegal
                               drugs cannot be controlled by law enforcement, education,
                               public-health intervention or other methods, we can at least
                               reduce some of the harms associated with inevitable drug
                               use. According to the theory of harm reduction, dispensing
                               clean needles to addicts, for example, can reduce the
                               incidence of AIDS; maintaining heroin addicts on heroin can
                               reduce the amount of crime they would commit to maintain
                               their habit.

                               The truth is that drug abuse wrecks lives. Addictive drugs
                               were criminalized because they are harmful; they are not
                               harmful because they were criminalized. If drugs were
                               legalized, decriminalized or made more available through
                               harm reduction policies, the costs to the individual and
                               society would grow astronomically. It is shameful that more
                               money is spent on illegal drugs than on art or higher
                               education, that drug-exposed babies are born addicted and
                               in pain, that thousands of adolescents lose their health and
                               future to drugs.

-------------
DEA'S POSITION  on legalizatin from  The DEA's "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization Website"

DEA is unequivocally opposed to the legalization of illicit drugs (including, marijuana, hemp, and hemp seed oil).

Legalization of drugs in any form would likely:

    (1) reduce the perception of the risks and costs of drug use;

    (2) increase availability of and access to harmful drugs;

    (3) increase demand, use, abuse, and addiction; and

    (4) remove the social sanction against drug abuse that is reinforced in legislation.

The present social problems in the United States, including crime, health problems, and poverty, are substantial and will
only be exacerbated if drugs are legalized. The arguments for legalization are a sad and bitter offering to the most vulnerable segment of our population. Legalization would increase risks and costs to individuals, families, and communities, indeed, to every part of the nation, without compensating benefits.

Any proposal with the potential to do these things is unacceptable. As public policy, it is fundamentally flawed.