Judge Stays Focused on Decriminalizing Drugs : Narcotics: The furor over the Orange County jurist’s crusade has died down, but he remains dedicated to keeping the issue before the public. He says he is gratified by debate on the proposal.

The politicians no longer curse his name, the sheriff has stopped questioning his sobriety, and the television talk shows have gone on to other controversial issues.

But Superior Court Judge James P. Gray’s crusade to decriminalize drug use, launched a year ago, is far from over.

“I feel that one person really can make a difference, and I’m very committed to this,” Gray said recently. “I think it would save lives, and I don’t intend to stop.”

Gray, a conservative judge in a conservative county, believes that his outspokenness is helping legitimize a position that had long been associated with radicals, anarchists and social misfits.

“Because of my going public, the issue is more discussed today, by far, than it was a year ago,” he said. “People may agree or disagree, but at least they are involving themselves in the discussion, and I am gratified by that.”

But he is not satisfied.

Recently he joined a national group that plans to lobby Congress and the Clinton Administration to adopt a new strategy in the so-called war on drugs.

Gray is not the only Orange County judge who favors drug decriminalization. Two others announced similar positions last year shortly after Gray went public. But neither U.S. Magistrate Ronald W. Rose nor Superior Court Judge James L. Smith is the activist that Gray is.

“I don’t plan to beat the bushes,” Rose said.

He, like Gray, went on local and national talk shows and took part in public discussions of the issue. Smith has kept a lower profile since responding to a newspaper survey last summer by saying that he agreed with his fellow jurists about decriminalizing drug use.

Whatever their level of activism, all three judges made an impact in the county, and perhaps even nationally, just by expressing their views, according to those on both sides of the issue.

“There’s no doubt about it, when the (Orange County) judges spoke out, the debate was legitimized,” said Kevin B. Zeese, vice president of the Drug Policy Foundation, a Washington-based think tank that supports new approaches to the drug problem.

“They are generals in the war on drugs, and they were raising questions about the effectiveness of the drug laws,” he said. “People listen to the general.”

Zeese described Gray as “particularly active” in the debate, “not just speaking out about it but also doing something about it” by agreeing to work in the lobbying effort.

The lobbying group, which includes prominent scholars, doctors, politicians and law enforcement officials, met several months ago at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University.

Its members want to change the country’s approach to the drug problem and persuade people that it is a social and medical problem, not a criminal justice one. The group will begin lobbying in the next few months for the appointment of an independent national commission to re-examine U.S. anti-drug policies.

With a new Administration in Washington, Gray and the Drug Policy Foundation believe that there is the possibility for a change.

“I think we have a window of opportunity here for reassessment and re-evaluation,” Gray said. “President Clinton is not married to any of the failed past policies, and that isn’t because he is a Democrat or Republican, it’s because he is a new President.”

During the presidential campaign, Clinton said he did not support legalization but favored putting more emphasis on drug treatment and education programs.

So far, his Administration seemingly has paid scant attention to the drug war and has taken steps to scale back the staff of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, from 146 to 25.

“Having Gray and the other judges come out is one of the things that gives added strength for the President to tone down the emphasis on drug interdiction,” Zeese said.

Local law enforcement officials, however, say the only impact that Gray had on the drug problem is negative.

“The message he was sending out was totally wrong,” said Santa Ana Police Chief Paul M. Walters, who sits on the Board of Directors for the county’s Drug Advisory Commission.

“Because he is a judge he can influence people with what he’s saying, and it’s not appropriate,” Walters said. “He’s forced us to go out and restate our position more clearly. Valuable time and resources have been taken away from our goals because we are forced to fight someone within our own system.”

After Gray’s news conference on the issue last April 8, some community leaders demanded that Gray be disciplined by the Judicial Performance Commission in San Francisco.

Orange County Sheriff Brad Gates was his harshest critic, suggesting that the judge “was smoking” something before he made his comments. The sheriff vowed to seek Gray’s ouster when he runs for reelection in 1996.

Most critics called Gray naive, saying that from his courtroom bench he could not see the human toll that drugs take on the streets. They said legalization would make addictive drugs more available to everyone, especially children, even though Gray had specifically excluded minors in his proposal to decriminalize use of marijuana, cocaine and heroin.

Despite the attacks, Gray said he was surprised by the number of people who support his views.

“I have met many interesting people from all walks of life with different viewpoints, and I have seen a number of people come to the same conclusion that I have from totally different perspectives,” Gray said.

Gray stands by the proposals he made last year, although he has refined some of his statements. “I don’t use the term legalization anymore,” he said.

When he first detailed his plan, the judge said drugs should be sold in local drugstores or pharmacies to any adult who wants them. The drugs would be priced to undercut the illegal dealers, and the revenue would go toward drug treatment and education programs.

“I defined a different kind of program and called it legalization, which is unfortunate,” Gray says now. “It’s really a program of regulated distribution. . . . Legalization connotes condoning, and that’s not what I’m about at all.”