cannabisnews.com: War on Drugs is a Lost Battle, Judges Say





War on Drugs is a Lost Battle, Judges Say
Posted by FoM on April 09, 2002 at 15:00:38 PT
By Robert Moran, Inquirer Staff Writer
Source: Philadelphia Inquirer
The war on drugs is a failure, declared four judges from across the nation, including one from Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, during a forum yesterday at Temple University."Victory is being defined by slowing down the pace of defeat," said California Superior Court Judge James P. Gray during a panel session held at Temple's James E. Beasley School of Law.
Common Pleas Court Judge Renee Cardwell Hughes spoke favorably about the legalization of marijuana but said she recognized that "Pennsylvania as a state is nowhere near ready for that dialogue."The judges, including U.S. District Judges John T. Curtin of New York and John Kane of Colorado, are among a growing number of jurists nationwide who are speaking out publicly against antidrug laws they view as impractical and harsh.In particular, they have chafed under sentencing guidelines that require lengthy terms, limiting a judge's discretion in deciding an appropriate penalty.Some states also are moving to reduce mandatory prison sentences. With the economic downturn resulting in tighter budgets, state officials want to cut prison costs.Last week, Washington Gov. Gary Locke signed into law a measure that will reduce sentences for some nonviolent drug crimes. Part of the money saved will go to drug courts and treatment programs.Though such changes have been proposed in recent years by legislators in Pennsylvania, they have yet to garner wide support. Similarly, no significant move to shorten sentences has gained much ground in New Jersey.Hughes, who was appointed to the bench in 1995, said she gave up presiding over criminal cases because of her frustration with sentencing restrictions."Mandatory sentencing does not allow me to look at people as individuals," said Hughes, who now handles civil cases.The judges also broached the thorny subject of legalization of marijuana.Responding to a question from the audience about "regulation" - the regulated legal sale of drugs - Hughes said: "I think drug regulation is a viable approach."When asked by a reporter to clarify her support for regulated sales, Hughes said: "Regulation is what we do with alcohol in Pennsylvania."She added: "I think some form of regulation could work in Pennsylvania with some drugs like marijuana."Hughes acknowledged, however, that there was little support in the state for such a change.Curtin, who serves as a senior judge in the federal western district of New York, has called on Congress to consider the decriminalization of marijuana.Legalization, Curtin said, "may happen in the future, but it's a long way away."Gray, who described himself as a "former drug warrior," said he believed that drug use should not be criminalized.If someone commits a crime while under the influence, he said, the offender should be prosecuted.Gray, now a civil-litigation judge, is the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It - A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs, a book published by Temple University Press.As a federal prosecutor, Gray said, he once held the record in the central district of California for largest drug prosecution. That case involved 160 pounds of heroin, he said. Today, he said, the record is 18 tons of cocaine.Note: At a forum, they spoke in favor of legalizing marijuana and against sentencing guidelines for drug offenses.Source: Inquirer (PA)Author: Robert Moran, Inquirer Staff WriterPublished: Tuesday, April 9, 2002Copyright: 2002 Philadelphia Newspapers IncContact: Inquirer.Letters phillynews.comWebsite: http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/home/Related Articles & Web Site:Judge James Grayhttp://www.judgejimgray.com/Battlefield Conversions - Reason Magazinehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11673.shtmlThe Anguish of The Drug War Judgeshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10099.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #9 posted by PAUL PETERSON on April 10, 2002 at 15:49:18 PT:
You say Bomb threats? I got bombed too
You say those guys got bomb threats, great! Thats all I need right now. I was this lawyer dude, dude. I had this practice practice. I had this family, this chemical imbalance, so they say-say! Did I tell you about how you can't trust lawyers that work in state government, eh? At least some of them some of the time, think they can do these crimes and then commit crimes to hide crimes and then they tell you you are delusional and then nobody wants to ever even listen to you'se again. And wonce you starts to missspell words, then bingo-they got's you, they doos.So, because I started this web site, and believed that I had something to say, say they wanted to get me gone-bingo-the web site is gone. Just like that, they did, and I guess that figures, because I started to get too cocky or something-go figure-just because I wanted to go to the DEA and "teach" them to have some "medical marijuana sensitivity training", I sent this flyer out, really I did, offering to give the talk for $400 per session, really I would, and I could help them to be more sensitive about these things, really they should! So I'm thinking they came right in and bammo-last night the site was up, today its toast-really it is! Maybe it's time to leave town-Illinois (that's the "Land o lincoln" to you'se) is a working on a law to put me in jail for talking about pot over the phone (the net, that is). I'm thinking, like those three judges out in California way, that there is this "first amendment" thingy that allows even doctors (and they aren't even lawyers and all) to talk about these things without fear-but of course: 1) I ain't a lawyer no more, 2) I aint a web site guy any more, 3) I'll bet my phone goes next, 4) the office door gets blown open next-oh a knock on the door...(SCUFFLE, BAM, HIT, SHOVE, BIFF, POW, sound of breaking glass:) FOLLOW YOUR LEADER. MR. PETERSON HAS LEFT THE BUILDING. PAY NO ATTENTION. GO BACK TO YOUR FARMS AND JOBS. DON'T PLANT ANYTHING YOU DIDN'T BUY FROM THE LEADER. THE LEADER IS WISE. LONG LIVE THE LEADER. END OF TRANSMISSION.
GO BACK TO YOUR FARMS PEASANT PIGS
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by i420 on April 10, 2002 at 05:20:55 PT
Memory lane....
I seem to recall something similar about a decade ago. Certain Judges publicly asked for some type of reform of drug laws. Then if I recall correctly several Judges had some type of bomb threats made on them. If anyone remembers this and can elaborate more i am sure people would like to know.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by PAUL PETERSON on April 09, 2002 at 21:17:22 PT:
The Fantastic Four
Its great to see articles like this surfacing somewhere, anywhere, with the gradual crescendo that has happened this last few months. I remember way back in the summer of ot'1 (I think that is phonetic for 01), back when you could go online once a month and get all the news about pot wars real fast. Now, if you don't check cannabis.com at least twice a day, you miss some important updates and all!Why, I even had to find out how to use this thing so I could add my own shit to the fan. (Not that my verbage would pass muster in Peoria or anything).And hats off to some courageous jurists that just took some remarkable risks by being seen together and saying that swear word (I think they call it "1st"-for some people I need to use that word in context so that they know what it means hence: "The 1st amendment guarantees the right to speak your mind without fear of incrimination or loss of your job" Good, you got the gist of it.) Now here's another term we used to use for the kind of right of passage that is really easy to pass, like no one would ever need to worry about (again, I'll use it in a sentence:) Oh, don't worry, it's like a URINE test. Well, that has changed beyond recognition, just like the "1st" amendment thing! But wait-just over the horizon, can you see it? It's a bird, it's a plane, it's "freedom" again. What do I see? I see about a dozen instances where judges have stood up to be counted 1) those guys that won the DC thing (including the judiciary talking about those things), 2) the Colorado kids invoking those things-and denying the police the right to book purchaser names, 3) those three musketeers in San Francisco boldly going where no judge has gone before recently (to talk about doctors having that 1st amendment right to actually talk to their patients!), 4) a good judge in Hawaii sweating out his days trying to get up the nerve to grant pot "religious status" (his choice is whether the state has a "compelling interest" to restrict religious freedom-another 1st right!), and some really good Tories that are gonna teach us (our) renegade (friends) with Bibles (Bibles have 1st amendment rights too, don't get me wrong-just don't give them to zealots with guns and badges, please-the handcuffs don't look good against a black background!). Now, of course, it is the Brits and Canadians that look like the guys that teach us about freedom and rights and compromise and JUSTICE for a change.
Well, I'm even proud to say the mayor of New York City started taling about that 1st thingy too-even though he is a little pissed about it, saying he toked up and all, and now he's embarrased because he might just lose a little of that federal bribe money thingy by his lose lips! But at least he did say it right, that we all live in a country where that 1st thingy means something, and after the last week that was, and is, I AM PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN, AND THAT'S THAT. Let's keep that freedom thing happening more and more. Start sending this article by these judges to your favorite judge or three, OK? And please feel free to use anything I write against me like those NORML guys are using that mayor thing too. Visit my web site and pirate anything you want, just get it going out there, and tellem I sent you, OK? THAT'S AN ORDER.
PAUL PETERSON 312-558-9999 
FANTASTIC FOUR & MORE TO COME
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by E_Johnson on April 09, 2002 at 18:08:49 PT
Try hanging with a different crowd, dear (oops)
When asked by a reporter to clarify her support for regulated sales, Hughes said: "Regulation is what we do with alcohol in Pennsylvania."She added: "I think some form of regulation could work in Pennsylvania with some drugs like marijuana."Hughes acknowledged, however, that there was little support in the state for such a change.If the only people you hang out with are political leaders and people in the so-called Justice system, then you might be led to believe that this is true.But this is not the way that John Q. and Jane Q. Public are thinking any more. The political and legal establishments are way, way out of tune with public sentiment here.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by E_Johnson on April 09, 2002 at 18:08:10 PT
Try hanging with a different crowd, dear
When asked by a reporter to clarify her support for regulated sales, Hughes said: "Regulation is what we do with alcohol in Pennsylvania."She added: "I think some form of regulation could work in Pennsylvania with some drugs like marijuana."Hughes acknowledged, however, that there was little support in the state for such a change.If the only people you hang out with are political leaders and people in the so-called Justice system, then you might be led to believe that this is true.But this is not the way that John Q. and Jane Q. Public are thinking any more. The political and legal establishments are way, way out of tune with public sentiment here.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by null on April 09, 2002 at 18:05:33 PT
sense
Hughes said: "Regulation is what we do with alcohol in Pennsylvania."Judges and others involved in the judicial system are the ones in the system most likely to have sensible views on this issue. The police get tainted by asset forfeiture money. And they are the ones that actually have their lives on the line trying to enforce these bad laws and are facing huge criminal cartels with billions in resources!! Make no mistake - while marijuana is not bad, drug cartels are! The legislative branch is the looney bin responsible for the prohibition problem! But the judicial system has to take the beating of the work load and face all these people who have been arrested and say "You are a criminal and deserve punishment." But they realize that most people that use marijuana are not "criminals" but normal folks in every other way and nice people. So they are fairly pragmatic.Prohibition is still madness. It was madness in the 20's concerning alcohol. It is madness today concerning drugs.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by i420 on April 09, 2002 at 17:44:34 PT
Print it...
Print this article and mail it to your local courthouse !!!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on April 09, 2002 at 16:36:58 PT
Crossfire
  Just caught the end of the newly-revamped Crossfire on CNN as I was channel-surfing. They breifly brought up two relevant topics. First, they mentioned the plan at Yale to compensate people who lose student aid from the Souder bill. One of the guys did use that damned word "druggie", pointing out that Yale was helping criminals and all that mind-rot. But someone also mentioned that Bush went to Yale. Secondly, their "quote of the day" was the Michael Bloomberg quote used in the NYT NORML ad, which they did a quick 30-45 seconds on, and showed on the screen for a few seconds.  Not much of a news sighting... but on CNN, anything I see about the drug war is a bit of a shock, since they cover it so little.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by goneposthole on April 09, 2002 at 15:57:43 PT
It's about time
and not about crime. If marijuana were such a dangerous 'drug', the 75 million people who have tried it at least once would have gone reefer mad and embarked on a crime wave so 'eeeeevil' the world would have gone to hell in a hand basket in a hurry.It didn't.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment