PUT THIS IN YOUR PIPE: DRUG LAWS TOO HARSH

In the state of Oklahoma, we can be punished more severely for committing
nonviolent crimes than violent crimes. Nonviolent offenders deserve to be
punished, but not punished more harshly than violent offenders who ruin and
end the lives of others.

In a democracy, which is what our government likes to call itself, the
people's beliefs should be reflected in our nation's and states' laws. The
severity of a punishment should be directly proportional to the severity of
the committed crime.

The people of this state do not think people convicted a couple of times
for the possession of drugs or once for a "specific controlled synthetic
substance" should be sentenced more years in prison than a rapist or a
murderer. However, our state's statutes differ with the people.

In our fine state, rapists and murderers can be sentenced to fewer years in
prison than non-violent offenders. A rapist (first degree) could be
sentenced for as few as five years in prison and someone guilty of
second-degree murder or kidnapping for purpose of extortion could be
sentenced for 10 years. Additionally, poisoning and solicitation for
first-degree murder carry a sentence of five years, a short time compared
to a non-violent offender sentenced to 20 years.

In this state, any person who is convicted of a third felony is
automatically sentenced a minimum of 20 years in prison. A person could be
convicted of possession of PCP three times and be sentenced to 20 years or
someone else could be convicted of possession of marijuana four times and
also be sentenced to a minimum of 20 years in prison. Someone convicted
twice of manufacturing or possessing with the intent to distribute any
synthetic controlled substance gets a minimum of 10 years in jail.

If a person is convicted of drug trafficking, and he or she has already
been convicted of two or more violations of the Uniform Controlled
Dangerous Substances Act, that person's minimum prison sentence is life
without parole.

For the grand finale: Anyone who possesses, manufactures or even attempts
to manufacture a substance listed in Section 2-322 of Title 63 -- which for
those of you who haven't memorized your state statutes, include such
chemicals as D-Lysergic acid (a component of LSD), methylamine, isosafrole,
norpseudophedrine and 17 other chemicals with long names that I have never
heard of -- receives a minimum of 20 years in prison.

I will be the first to admit that I do not know exactly what these
chemicals are, but I am certain that possessing one of these chemicals is
not nearly as bad as raping or taking the life of another human being.

In a democracy, our laws and punishments for crimes should directly reflect
the peoples' opinions. I do not believe that a person convicted of
possessing PCP three times or someone convicted of possessing one of the 21
substances listed in 2-322 is four times more harmful to our society than a
rapist or even twice as harmful as a murderer, but the minimum sentencing
statutes in our state implies that this is true.

A murderer is more of a danger to society than a person convicted twice of
manufacturing a synthetic controlled substance, but state law suggests that
the crimes are equal because they both carry minimum jail sentences of 10
years.

Drugs are not our society's biggest problem, but our laws unfairly target
these non-violent offenders. In America, there are 94,000 alcohol-related
deaths a year vs. 21,000 drug-related deaths, including the violence
associated with the drug trade, according to "The Sentencing Project --
Policy Reports" (www.sentencingproject.org). More than four times as many
people die from alcohol than from drugs in America in any given year.

History shows that the prohibition of alcohol doesn't work. But while
alcohol remains legal, many other mind-altering substances that are far
less dangerous than alcohol are still illegal. The prohibition of alcohol
did not work because illegal bootlegging was even more detrimental than the
alcohol itself. Annually, our country spends an estimated $6.1 billion a
year to incarcerate drug offenders, but the government has continually
maintained its expensive prohibition, the so-called "War on Drugs," on
substances that are less hazardous than alcohol.

In a survey performed by NORMAL across America of high school seniors in
the class of 2000, 48.8 percent reported having tried or used marijuana at
least once. This statistic isn't too shocking, but if a survey showed that
48.8 percent of high school students had previously raped or murdered, we
would be appalled.

Yet it is possible in the state of Oklahoma for a rapist to serve a fourth
of the time spent in jail that a non-violent person convicted of three
felonies. It is probably true that drug crimes occur more often than
violent crimes, but a punishment for a crime should not be more severe just
because the crime occurs more often. Since 75 percent of all inmates are
repeat offenders, according to the Indiana Prevention Resource Center,
prison should not be seen as a deterrent to crime.

If I had to choose, I would prefer to live next door to a convicted drug
user rather than a killer. I think that most people would share my
sentiments, but the government has imposed punishments on non-violent
offenders that assume these offenders are more harmful to society than
violent criminals.

These punishments seem absurdly unethical when compared to the lighter
punishments of violent criminals. Oklahoma is far behind other states in
regard to its drug laws, because at the present, Oklahomas punishments for
drug crimes are, without a doubt, absolutely immoral and wrong.