Just Say No To Drug War Policy
A gift from the Reagans. TalkLeft looks at where it got us:

Did the law nab Pablo Escobar? No. The law's first conquest was David Ronald Chandler, known as "Ronnie." Ronnie grew marijuana in a small town in rural, northeast Alabama. About 300 pounds a year. Ronnie was sentenced to death for supposedly hiring someone to kill his brother-in-law. The witness against him later recanted. Clinton commuted Chandler's death sentence to life. (Source: NPR, 4/2/01, available on Lexis.com)

...As a result of these flawed drug policies inititiated by then President Reagan, (and continued by Bush I, Clinton and Bush II,) the number of those imprisoned in America has quadrupled to over 2 million. These are legacies we are still fighting today. You can help. Support FAMM, Families Against Mandatory Minimums. Even George Shultz, Ronald Reagan's former secretary of state, acknowleged in 2001 that the War on Drugs is a flop. (MacLeans, 5/7/01, available on Lexis.com)

In Smoke and Mirrors, Dan Baum, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, provides a detailed account of the politics surrounding Reagan's war on drugs. From the Atlantic Monthly, April, 1997 (available on Lexis.com)

Conservative parents' groups opposed to marijuana had helped to ignite the Reagan Revolution. Marijuana symbolized the weakness and permissiveness of a liberal society; it was held responsible for the slovenly appearance of teenagers and their lack of motivation. Carlton Turner, Reagan's first drug czar, believed that marijuana use was inextricably linked to "the present young-adult generation's involvement in anti-military, anti-nuclear power, anti-big business, anti-authority demonstrations." A public-health approach to drug control was replaced by an emphasis on law enforcement. Drug abuse was no longer considered a form of illness; all drug use was deemed immoral, and punishing drug offenders was thought to be more important than getting them off drugs. The drug war soon became a bipartisan effort, supported by liberals and conservatives alike. Nothing was to be gained politically by defending drug abusers from excessive punishment.

Drug-control legislation was proposed, almost like clockwork, during every congressional-election year in the 1980s. Election years have continued to inspire bold new drug-control schemes. On September 25 of last year Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich introduced legislation demanding either a life sentence or the death penalty for anyone caught bringing more than two ounces of marijuana into the United States. Gingrich's bill attracted twenty-six co-sponsors, though it failed to reach the House floor. A few months earlier Senator Phil Gramm had proposed denying federal welfare benefits, including food stamps, to anyone convicted of a drug crime, even a misdemeanor. Gramm's proposal was endorsed by a wide variety of senators-including liberals such as Barbara Boxer, Tom Harkin, Patrick Leahy, and Paul Wellstone. A revised version of the amendment, limiting the punishment to people convicted of a drug felony, was incorporated into the welfare bill signed by President Clinton during the presidential campaign. Possessing a few ounces of marijuana is a felony in most states, as is growing a single marijuana plant. As a result, Americans convicted of a marijuana felony, even if they are disabled, may no longer receive federal welfare or food stamps. Convicted murderers, rapists, and child molesters, however, will continue to receive these benefits.

Moreover, kids with even a marijuana conviction are denied federal college loans and grants, and have been since 1998, when a provision was added to the Higher Education Act. Brilliant. Let's sentence them to a lifetime of missed opportunities. As Pat Ford-Roegner, Executive Director of NAADAC--The Association for Addiction Professionals said, "If we want to help these young people become productive members of society, hindering their access to a college education is foolish -- in fact it increases the likelihood that their drug misuse will continue."

(Of course, Pat makes the mistake here in assuming all drug use is abuse -- or, perhaps, plays devil's advocate in service of her cause.)