LET'S HAVE A RATIONAL DEBATE ON DRUG POLICY, SEN. GRASSLEY

Our criminal justice system is in dire need of reform. The United
States has 5 percent of the world's population, but houses 25 percent
of the world's prisoners. With drug offenders accounting for half of
federal prisoners and 21 percent of state prisoners, drug
incarceration is a major cause of the burgeoning U.S. criminal
justice system.

Many of those serving time are low-level offenders with no history of
violence. In a 2008 Zogby poll, three out of four Americans said the
war on drugs is failing. This clear indictment of U.S. drug policy
falls directly into the lap of Congress. As a whole, Congress has
been hesitant to address the shortcomings of U.S. drug policy because
of the perception that it is a controversial and politically damaging
issue.

With Congress afraid to touch the issue, the need for an independent
commission with full investigative powers is apparent. That's why
Sen. Jim Webb, a Virginia Democrat, and 35 other senators are
sponsoring the National Criminal Justice Commission Act (NCJCA) to
establish a blue ribbon commission to review our criminal justice
system.

Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley proposed an amendment to the bill
that would prevent discussion or even examination of the possibility
that drugs, including medical marijuana, should be decriminalized or
legalized. Grassley's weak justification for attempting to suppress
these viable policy options is: "The point is, for them to do what we
tell them to do." This assertion undermines the very purpose of the
commission: For experts to recommend to the Senate alternatives to
our current approach to incarceration, regardless of whether these
findings conflict with our current "get-tough" approach.

What motivation could he have, save the fear that any real discussion
on decriminalization or legalization would reach the sensible
conclusion that these policies deserve serious consideration?

Perhaps Grassley is aware that similar commissions have reported
favorably on decriminalization or legalization. In 1972, a commission
appointed by President Nixon to reexamine marijuana policy
recommended that simple marijuana possession by adults should not be
a crime. Obviously, this recommendation ultimately was not
implemented.

More recently, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime commended
Portugal's decriminalization of all drugs by stating, "These
conditions keep drugs out of the hands of those who would avoid them
under a system of full prohibition ... it also appears that a number
of drug-related problems have decreased."

The most disturbing aspect of Grassley's amendment is that it would
preclude the commission from discussing medical marijuana, an issue
of compassion and mercy that enjoys over 70 percent support across
the country in poll after poll. Has Grassley ignored the recent
medical marijuana hearings held by the Iowa Board of Pharmacy?
Judging from the passionate testimonies given by sick and dying
Iowans, this is an important issue for his constituents. Grassley
owes it to these people to at least give the commission a chance to
study medical marijuana. By silencing debate, he ill serves those
whom he represents.

Grassley explained his choice to draft numerous amendments to the
bill by saying that "you want everything on the table," so that you
can pick and choose which amendments to ultimately submit. If he is
so concerned about having a full range of options for amendments to
consider, why is he intentionally silencing certain options for
solving the U.S. incarceration problem?

Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) seeks an open, honest and
rational debate on drug policy. If Grassley is so sure that
legalization is the wrong course of action, then presumably he can
support this assertion.

The University of Iowa SSDP chapter would be happy to provide a forum
for just such a discussion. Perhaps there he can demonstrate why he
believes these ideas are too dangerous to even consider.