Pubdate: Thu, 30 Jan 2014
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Copyright: 2014 Hearst Communications Inc.
Contact: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/submissions/#1
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/388
Author: C.W. Nevius

SOFTER DRUG LAW HAS UNLIKELY BEDFELLOWS

S.F.'s district attorney is a part of a push to limit drug penalties. 
Everyone knows illegal drug use is one of the most persistent and 
thorny problems facing this country. Law enforcement agencies have 
been aggressively pursuing a war on drugs - particularly hard drugs 
like crack cocaine and heroin - for decades.

So imagine the uproar if someone proposed that the charge for all 
drug possession - even heroin - should be reduced from a felony to a 
mere misdemeanor. Someone has. But here's the kicker. It isn't some 
fringe group. It's law enforcement.

In fact, one of the prime promoters of the idea is San Francisco 
District Attorney George Gascon, who is out of town and wasn't 
available to talk about the idea. He has joined with San Diego Police 
Chief Bill Lansdowne to push a measure they hope to get on the state 
ballot in November. If passed, it would make possession of any drug, 
including heroin, for personal use a misdemeanor.

Wow. Wait until the conservative law-and-order groups hear about 
this. Bet they will hit the roof.

Or maybe they will support the idea wholeheartedly, which is what's 
happening. Dan Newman, a political strategist who is working on the 
bill, says there is surprising unanimity between the political right 
and left on this one.

"I think everybody sort of had this secret belief that - I probably 
shouldn't say this out loud if I ever want to have dinner with my 
Republican friends again - but in the privacy of the voting booth, 
I'd support that," Newman said.

It turns out they needn't have worried. The roll call of rockribbed 
conservatives who back the idea is stunning. It runs from former U.S. 
Attorney General Ed Meese to libertarian U.S. Sen. Rand Paul. Grover 
Norquist, founder of Americans for Tax Reform, is convinced that 
current law is a failure.

"Illegal drug use rates are stable, not shrinking," Norquist said 
recently. It appears that mandatory minimum (drug sentences) have 
become sort of a poor man's Prohibition."

OK, so we have the political theorists on board. What about average, 
middle-class Americans? Barry Krisberg, a senior fellow at UC 
Berkeley Law School who has been advising the supporters of the bill, 
says you might be surprised.

"If they can get it to the ballot, it will pass," Krisberg says. 
"There's been polling on this, and 60 percent of Californians say 
just because someone uses drugs, they don't want that person to be 
incarcerated."

"I think a new leaf has been turned in the world," says Lenore 
Anderson, executive director of Californians for Safety and Justice, 
which is trying to get people to talk about the issue. "There's a 
feeling of, let's go after recidivism through the treatment option."

There are potential problems. San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr, 
who worked the narcotics beat for years, agrees with the theory.

"A lot of people think jail is for bad guys, not sick people, and I 
agree," he said. "And if we have a jail crowding problem, let's 
concentrate on those preying on sick people."

But, he says, the cop on the beat needs to have a firm marker for how 
much can be considered drug possession for personal use. If, he says, 
someone is stopped with, for example, an ounce of heroin, "that's a 
huge amount of heroin. They may say, 'Well, I'm going to do all 
this.' And we say, 'No you're not.' "

The maximum sentence for a misdemeanor is one year in county jail, 
while repeat offenders with felony charges could end up in prison for 
three years. But Suhr says the more important difference is a felony 
stays on a suspect's record. A misdemeanor doesn't, increasing the 
odds of rebuilding a life.

It's a fascinating discussion, even if the average person doesn't 
seem to be engaged yet. Backers of the bill need 500,000 signatures 
to put it on the ballot. If that happens, says Krisberg, we can talk.

"The fact is," he says, "with these November ballot issues, nothing 
really happens until October. But when you put it on the public 
ballot, that means we are going to have a public conversation. And I 
say, good, let's have that discussion."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom