Pubdate: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 Source: Washington Times (DC) Copyright: 2005 News World Communications, Inc. Contact: http://www.washingtontimes.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/492 Author: Stephen Heath Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n139/a01.html SOFT ON DRUG USE AND POSSESSION Alan Reynolds' column "Let judges use judgment" (Commentary, Jan. 23) raises valid concerns about the need for Congress to exercise prudence as it examines federal sentencing guidelines in the wake of the most recent Supreme Court rulings. At the same time, Congress should give careful reconsideration to the overall justification for such sentences, especially as applied to low-level drug offenders. Why are we handing out decade(s)-long sentences to people who are caught selling a few grams or ounces of marijuana, cocaine or ecstasy (MDMA, or methylenedioxymethamphetamine)? As one example, a 10-year prison sentence translates into much more than $250,000 in housing, food and health care that taxpayers are asked to foot to keep these offenders behind bars. Drug abuse has its roots in a combination of physical, mental and spiritual problems. None of these are addressed by taking offenders and caging them in federal prisons for years -- or in the case of many mandatory minimum sentences -- decades. Despite the feds having jailed more than 1 million such offenders during the past 20 years, the demand for illicit drugs and the illegal trade that feeds it remains a constant. Stern sentencing is likely worthy for criminals who pose a clear and demonstrable threat to the public. Simply being in possession of or selling a short list of politically incorrect substances, however, is not worthy of such resolutions. It's urgent that Congress bear that in mind during upcoming discussions of how to rewrite the mandatory-minimum guidelines. STEPHEN HEATH Clearwater, Fla. - --- MAP posted-by: SHeath(DPFFLorida)