Decriminalizing Drug Use: Idea Whose Time Is Coming?

“ In relation to society and government . . . new ideas are rare .” -- Henry Cabot Lodge

The first thing you noticed was that it wasn’t a hippie crowd. There looked to be at least a couple hundred people, and by my unofficial eyeballing most were middle-aged or beyond.

Radicals? Hardly. There were too many Oldsmobiles in the parking lot.

Dangerous godless subversives out to undermine the government? I don’t think godless subversives meet Tuesday nights at the Crystal Cathedral, the Rev. Robert H. Schuller’s monument to enlightened salvation, and book-end their meetings with prayers.

What, then, to make of this crowd, most notable for its averageness, that came out to hear a succession of speakers say the country has lost the drug war and should consider alternatives to jailing some drug offenders? Why were they applauding the speakers instead of booing them off the stage?

When Superior Court Judge James P. Gray a year ago became the first local public official to come out for relaxing sanctions on drugs, Sheriff Brad Gates was aghast. He wondered aloud what Gray had been smoking. You’d have thought from Gates’ reaction that Gray had let a murderer escape, instead of an idea.

The argument made by Gray and others, loosely stated, is that this country isn’t making a significant dent in its drug problem. Further, drug offenders are accounting for the bulk of the nearly 1 million people incarcerated in our already overcrowded prisons, many for nonviolent offenses. Further, that the crimes drug users commit to get money for drugs is the real threat to society and is costing us dearly in insurance premiums and our sense of well-being.

Therefore, the theory goes, if some drugs were legalized or their usage decriminalized, resources could be spent either on drug education or other social problems.

The debate then goes down a dozen side roads. For example, for every man imprisoned for drugs, what happens to that family without a breadwinner? What are his employment chances, not to mention his attitude, when he gets out of prison? Was society helped or hurt because he was put behind bars? Are we throwing good money after bad?

U.S. District Magistrate Judge Ronald Rose, who presides in Santa Ana, told the audience that the phalanx of drug agents are “extremely dedicated” people who are “having absolutely no effect on anything.” He said many of the agents “feel they are wasting their time.”

We know that drugs can make people do bad things, but so does alcohol. What’s the difference? My guess is that we still have the ‘60s on our mind--we picture the Manson family and the specter of drug-crazed killers on the loose. That followed the tradition of “Reefer Madness” a generation or so earlier, the “documentary” that warned parents what could happen to a child who smoked marijuana.

“Basically, drugs don’t drive people to crime,” said Kennington Wall, spokesman for an independent think-tank in Washington that publicizes alternatives to national drug policy. “It’s the need to raise money that drives crime, and arguments over payment and turf that drive the crime. Very few people smoke crack and kill somebody. The one drug that causes the most violence is alcohol.”

Proponents on both sides could bury us with statistics and surveys. The speakers Tuesday night said that’s what they’re really after--a national discussion of the issue. While making it clear that they oppose current policies, the panelists frequently said they didn’t pretend to have all the answers.

Gates, who has decorated his career with his anti-drug activities, has cited surveys showing that most Americans oppose easing drug sanctions. I’m sure those surveys are correct, but I wonder how many Americans have taken time to ponder the scope of their country’s drug war. That is, is it working?

Had the sheriff seen the constituency at the Crystal Cathedral, he would realize the days are over when he can dismiss the Judge Grays of the world. The debate is coming, whether the sheriff wants it to or not.

As the meeting Tuesday was breaking up, one of the audience members turned to his friends and asked if they could believe that the Crystal Cathedral agreed to host a panel discussing legalizing drugs. Jokingly, the man said, “Hey, maybe Schuller”--he then interrupted himself and simulated the good reverend tooting on a joint.

No, I seriously doubt that’s the source of Schuller’s positive thinking. In fact, Gray specifically noted that Schuller disagrees with him on his general belief about relaxing drug sanctions.

But unlike some people, Schuller apparently isn’t afraid of ideas running wild or of enlightened public discussion.

When Sheriff Gates arrives at that position, we’ll all tune in to see what he has to say.