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."