Judge’s Call for Legalized Drugs Stirs Backlash : Law: Orange County jurist saying the ‘war on drugs’ is a farce ignites an opposition movement. He advocates the plan as a way to ease courtroom congestion and overcrowded jails.

He does not remember the name, but Judge James P. Gray will never forget the face of the 17-year-old who appeared before him four years ago in Division 311 of the Municipal Court on drug charges.

“I could pick him out of a lineup right now. He was one bad guy,” Gray recalled. “He would beat up prostitutes, steal from them, sell drugs. . . . No conscience. He was so involved in criminal activities that he was going to be tried as an adult.”

But what made the teen-ager so memorable for Gray was his reaction when Gray certified another judge’s plea agreement that gave the youth only 90 days in the County Jail.

“After I was done with him, he let out a big war whoop,” Gray said. “He was so pleased that was all he got.”

Gray looks back on that incident as a turning point in his life--the moment that he realized that the so-called “war on drugs” was a farce and that “the bad guys were winning.”

Two weeks ago, the 47-year-old Superior Court judge immersed himself in controversy, risking his career and reputation, by advocating the legalization of the use of marijuana, cocaine and heroin by adults. He claims that such a plan would ease courtroom congestion and overcrowded jails, as well as lead to a decrease in drug use.

“The system just doesn’t work,” he said. “Look at Division 311.”

Indeed, a seemingly endless stream of defendants facing drug charges passed through Division 311 last week, much as they did four years ago when Gray presided in the courtroom where arraignments and preliminary hearings take place.

Court officials say that about 325 cases a month go through Division 311. Of those cases, more than 75% are drug-related.

To Gray, Division 311 represents everything wrong with how society deals with drugs and drug abusers. His six-month stint in that courtroom, he said, changed his way of thinking and drove him to hold a press conference April 8 where he proclaimed: “I’ve finally reached my saturation point.”

Gray hardly seems like the type who would advocate the legalized selling of marijuana, cocaine or heroin at “licensed” neighborhood pharmacies. Under his proposal, the drugs would be taxed and the funds used to pay for drug education and treatment programs.

Gray, son of the late U. S. District Judge William P. Gray and father of three grown children, appears as straight-laced and all-American as they come, proudly calling himself “a conservative judge in a conservative county.”

In 1978, Gray went into private practice in Los Angeles and concentrated on corporate litigation. But he grew tired of life as an attorney. He was appointed to the Municipal Court bench in 1984 by then-Gov. George Deukmejian. Five years later, Deukmejian appointed him to the Superior Court bench, where he is today, hearing mostly civil cases.

Since his controversial news conference, Gray has been at the center of a countywide debate. Orange County Sheriff Brad Gates has led a movement of opposition, threatening to campaign against Gray when he is up for reelection in 1996.

Other county officials, from district attorney to county supervisors, have also sounded off against the judge, while organizations, such as the Drug Abuse Is Life Abuse program, have distributed news releases arguing that the war on drugs is being won.

Gray has been deluged with scores of letters and telephone calls from people throughout the state who have commented about his proposal. He is even scheduled to tape a national televised talk show program next week on the topic.

Gray defended his action, saying a judicial canon states that a judge may speak out on issues that concern the administration of justice. At his news conference this month, he was careful to point out that he was speaking only as a private citizen. He said he took vacation time to state his views and printed the news releases at his own expense.

Gray said he knew there would be some backlash to his proposal and considered it thoroughly before making his statements.

He also considered that, because of his stance, he will most likely “never again be appointed any other judicial position.”

“I’m gratified about the response,” he said. “Whether they are for my proposal or not, people are talking about the issue and that’s what needs to be done. . . . This issue is so important to our society. Something had to be done. Nothing was being said. And now something is.”