Pubdate: Wed, 04 Apr 2009
Source: Claremont Courier (CA)
Copyright: 2009 Claremont Courier
Contact:  http://www.claremont-courier.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/4488
Author: Elise Viebeck
Note: Editor's note: Elise Viebeck is a reporting intern for the 
COURIER. She is a junior at Claremont McKenna College majoring in Government.
Cited: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition http://www.leap.cc/
Cited: Jim Gray http://www.judgejimgray.com/
Cited: Pitzer College Students for Sensible Drug Policy 
http://ssdp.org/chapters/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?233 (Law Enforcement Against 
Prohibition Speakers)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?219 (Students for Sensible Drug Policy)

DRUG POLICY DEBATE ELICITS FRANK QUESTIONS, FEW ANSWERS

If I gave you $50 tonight, how many could come back with $50 worth of 
marijuana tomorrow?"

At Pitzer College on Wednesday night, nearly 150 students raised their hands.

The question, addressed to an audience of students, faculty, and 
community members, came as part of a much-anticipated debate on 
national drug policy hosted by Pitzer College. The two-hour event saw 
a vigorous collision of perspectives on a range of drug issues, 
including legalization, the War on Drugs, and the nature of drug abuse.

Some community members who attended the debate were shocked by what 
they heard about the availability of drugs on campus, and students' 
favorable opinions toward the loosening of drug restrictions.

Decriminalization of drugs will harm the community and endanger 
youth," said Paul Chabot, an advisor at the Inland Valley Drug Free 
Community Coalition.

Gabe Loewinger, the Pitzer sophomore who spearheaded the event, has 
heard this line before.

I think it's easy to look at this as a bunch of stoners who want to 
smoke and not get in trouble," he said. "I'm trying to say 'No. It's 
not about a bunch of upper-middle class white kids getting pot. These 
policies are reinforcing injustices and causing a lot of problems nationally."

Mr. Loewinger is the founding president of the Pitzer chapter of 
Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), which coordinated the 
debate. SSDP is an international grass-roots organization that 
opposes zero tolerance policies toward drug offenses, but 
acknowledges the "very real harms of drug abuse."

Judge James Gray, a member of LEAP (Law Enforcement Against 
Prohibition), believes drugs should not be prohibited, but regulated 
and controlled. Mr. Loewinger said he worries about these harms, the 
misinformation that can lead to accidents with drugs, and the way 
poorly enforced policies undermine kids' respect for law.

Even if you favor prohibition [of drugs], I think it's hard to argue 
that our current policies--at least all of them--are effective. I 
wanted to grab people's attention on this issue."

The debate featured two experts with different backgrounds and 
perspectives on drug policy.

Judge Jim Gray, who presides over Orange County's Superior Court, is 
a former federal prosecutor and criminal defense attorney. A former 
Republican, he ran against Senator Barbara Boxer as a Libertarian in 
2004. He is a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a 
national advocacy group that favors strict regulation rather than 
prohibition of drugs.

Mr. Gray's opponent, Dr. Kevin Sabet, has a background on the 
policy-making side. He worked as an advisor and speechwriter for drug 
czars in the Clinton and second Bush administrations. Having earned a 
doctorate in Social Policy from Oxford University, he is now a 
private consultant on drug policy for local governments and non-profits.

The two rarely agreed during the debate. Mr. Gray argued for an 
intricate regulatory scheme to replace simple drug bans. Invoking the 
principles of personal responsibility and states' rights, he 
encouraged the audience to separate their personal approval or 
disapproval of drugs from policy considerations.

Just because we might adopt some reforms doesn't mean we condone drug 
abuse," he said.

Dr. Sabet responded with a more cautious approach, and concluded that 
the potential ill effects of legalization are too dangerous to risk.

Commercialization [of drugs] will fuel profits and use," he said. 
"We're not living in a world where our actions are done in a vacuum. 
What you do affects other people ... it's not your business--it's 
everyone's business. To say that your actions are your business is a 
pipe dream."

A question-and-answer period followed the debate, and revealed 
skepticism toward Dr. Sabet among students.

Most people sided with Judge Gray," said Allysa Rueschenberg, a 
junior at Claremont McKenna College. "It was difficult to make sense 
of Dr. Sabet's position. He would say that changes should be made, 
but he never fully addressed the content of those changes."

Virtually every question was directed at Dr. Sabet," said David 
Leland, the Pitzer professor who moderated the debate. "But both 
sides have serious arguments, and ... for liberal arts students, 
being exposed to both sides is important."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom