Pubdate: Thu, 13 Dec 2001
Source: Westword (CO)
Copyright: 2001 New Times
Contact:  http://www.westword.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1616
Author: Daniel M. Murphy, Mike Lyons, Karen Stephano

THIS MEANS WAR!

Teacher's fret: I was fortunate enough to take a class in law school taught 
by the Honorable John Kane (Stuart Steers's "Disorder in the Court," 
November 22). He was, by far, the most interesting, compelling and erudite 
teacher I had.

Not only are his views on this country's ill-advised drug policy astute, 
but his assessment of the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of mandatory 
sentences is right on. But for a Reagan/Bush-packed Supreme Court, whose 
leader makes Rush Limbaugh look liberal, the separation-of-powers theory 
would not allow the legislature to hogtie the judiciary's ability to hand 
out just sentences for drug cases. Not mentioned, but just as egregious, is 
the fact that in Colorado, a person faces a possible twelve years in prison 
for possessing cocaine residue if it can be analyzed by the state. If that 
person hands this residue to a friend, he faces up to 32 years.

How this country allows the alcohol and tobacco industries to legally 
dispense drugs, which are arguably as harmful as illegal drugs, if not more 
so, is incredible. Incredible, but certain to remain in place, 
unfortunately. One reason for this is that an attempt to present a logical 
alternative would be political suicide. Kane has immunity from this fate 
only because he is a retired judge in a system that, due to partisan 
politics (see: Allard, Wayne, and his knee-jerk rejection of all Clinton 
judicial nominees) is in desperate need of jurists.

Our government is ignoring an opportunity to gain a huge revenue stream 
while reducing the need for drastic acts -- i.e., violence perpetrated by 
dealers trying to protect their interests. These additional monies could be 
used to ease the Social Security problem and, dare I say it, to infuse 
money into an educational system that sorely needs it.

Thank you for having the courage to present this view, for which I'm sure 
you will be vilified.

Daniel M. Murphy

Denver

- ---------------------------------------------------

A PUBLIC SERVICE

In the article on the "shifting drug war," Christie Donner is quoted as 
saying, "The public doesn't feel it's effective to put drug addicts in 
prison." It is very difficult for me to believe she speaks for "the 
public." Is she speaking for the population of Colorado? For the majority 
of Colorado? The governor disagrees with her, and he was elected by a 
majority of Colorado voters. Is she referring to the majority polled by 
Ridder/ Braden consultants? I would hope Ridder/ Braden is clever enough to 
word the questions and poll in the right areas to provide the answer it was 
paid for.

If Donner really is perceptive of what "the public" thinks and wants, I 
would hope she doesn't squander that talent in local politics.

Mike Lyons

Lamar

- ----------------------------------------------------

LAW AND ODOR

Many thanks to Stuart Steers for writing the informative and inspiring 
article about federal judge John Kane. As a citizen who does not use drugs 
and abhors the use of drugs, I have found the War on Drugs disturbing at 
best. The war is a travesty of justice, because it persecutes citizens 
unjustly and because the mandatory sentences attached to drug laws violate 
the Constitution.

Lawmakers should either condone a citizen's right to ingest insidious 
products such as alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, etc., or make all of 
these products illegal. Why is it socially and legally acceptable for 
citizens to ingest alcohol and tobacco but not cocaine and marijuana? The 
answer is that politicians do not pass laws based on what makes sense or 
what is morally right or just. They pass laws based on the desires of the 
special-interest groups that fund their campaigns and keep them in power.

Although adults use illegal drugs, the War on Drugs has been a war aimed at 
the American youth, because it is primarily young people who experiment 
with, and misuse, drugs. Young people will always do what they are not 
supposed to do, because that is the nature of being young. The politicians 
who have passed these harsh laws engaged in the same behavior when they 
were young, and so do their own children. The majority of young people who 
have been victimized by this war would have outgrown the allure of the drug 
culture and gone on to live productive lives. Instead, many of them have 
had their lives ruined by "crimes" such as selling a hit of acid to an 
undercover cop.

I think it's time that the enormous resources being wasted on this 
hypocritical war be reallocated more appropriately. Our tax dollars would 
be better spent to improve education, fund child-care programs for the poor 
or subsidize prescription drugs for the elderly.

Laws that require mandatory sentences violate the Constitution, because the 
legislative branch encroaches on the role of the judicial branch, and 
lawmakers not only pass the laws, they then dole out the sentences. Let's 
stop the War on Drugs. It's a hypocritical war and a waste of taxpayer 
money. Then let's restore the power of our judicial branch and let the 
judges do the judging!

Karen Stephano

Littleton
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens