Recently at Reason.tv: Judge Jim Gray on The Six Groups That Benefit From Drug Prohibition

|

In 1992, Jim Gray, a conservative judge in conservative Orange County, California, held a press conference during which he recommended that we rethink our drug laws. Back then, it took a great deal of courage to suggest that the war on drugs was a failed policy.

Today, more and more Americans are coming to the realization that prohibition's costs—whether measured in lives and liberties lost or dollars wasted—far exceed any possible or claimed benefits. Reason.tv's Paul Feine interviewed Gray about drug policy and the prospects for reform.  The interview was shot by Alex Manning and edited by Hawk Jensen.

Judge Jim Gray is a spokesman for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) is the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs.

Approximately 8.30 minutes.

Go to Reason.tv for downloadable iPod, HD, and audio versions.

Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel and receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

And come back to Reason.tv March 15 through March 19 for the debut of Reason Saves Cleveland With Drew Carey: How to fix the "Mistake on The Lake" and other once-great American cities, an original six-part documentary series.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

17 responses to “Recently at Reason.tv: Judge Jim Gray on The Six Groups That Benefit From Drug Prohibition

  1. Good video, its time to stop this sick form of Police Socialism.

  2. I can’t always get video at work… Anyone want to help a brother out and just list the 6 groups? (I’m guessing Attourneys are number 1…)

    1. It was drug lords, juvenile gangs, law enforcement people, tough-on-crime politicians, private sector prison builders etc., and terrorists.

  3. Just wanted to say again that I think this clip is great.

  4. Clear and concise. I like this guy.

  5. You left out this:

    San Francisco officials Tuesday ordered the shutdown of all drug testing at the police crime lab amid allegations that a former technician stole and used some of the cocaine she was supposed to analyze.

    Deborah J. Madden, 60, of San Mateo officially retired this month. An investigation linked her to missing drugs in at least six cases in the latter part of 2009, police said.

    She left her job as of Dec. 8 and has recently been in treatment for drugs and alcohol and other unspecified health issues, police said.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/…..z0hnSlbkZE

    1. Deborah J. Madden, 60, of San Mateo officially retired this month.

      So, after stealing evidence from the crime lab, she’s going to spend the rest of her life pulling down a sweet pension.

      Anyone wanna speculate on whether her substance abuse treatment is covered by her retiree health benefits? This is San Francisco, don’t forget.

  6. I like Matt Welch’s (based on Vaclav Havel’s) idea that any policy that is based on a lie cannot stand in the long run. I suspect marijuana will be decriminalized, if not legalized, just about everywhere within the next 20-30 years. Does anyone else think this is pretty much inevitable?

    1. I like Matt Welch’s (based on Vaclav Havel’s) idea that any policy that is based on a lie cannot stand in the long run.

      What are we up to now, nearly 80 years? That’s a pretty long fucking run.

  7. Jim Gray would make a great LP candidate for President. His name is already dirt among Republicans and he has previously run for US Senate on the LP line.

    This would help him spread his idea (a little) while simultaneously letting him sell some extra books.

    Win-Win!

  8. One reason Holland has half the pot use of the US is becuase they don’t have all that mexican brick weed. It takes fists full of that stuff to get high, so we smoke that much more. It throws off the statistics. Everyone knows that.

    Gray makes the argument that legal pot is “boring” and therefore use may go down. While there is some truth to that, I don’t think most people will buy it.

    I think the better argument is to tell people that there is moderate use and destructive use. Just like drunks vs. moderate drinkers. Legalization will make moderate use go up, but that won’t impose costs on non-users, just like no one notices the ebb and flow of moderate alcohol users from year to year. It doesn’t matter.

    And as for the type of marijuana users that would create problems for soceity – those people already use. A change in the law isn’t going to affect them.

  9. That’s just great, so now the DWI arrest will go up, and we’ll have drugged out zombies stumbling all over. And what about the Health care bill going out of sight.

    1. So, what you’re saying is that if drugs were legal, you’d start using? Because your comment implies that people who don’t use now will all start.

      I don’t drink, smoke or do any drugs. And 2 of those things are very much legal now, why would that suddenly change? There are plenty of people like me, who choose not to use drugs but still would like it decriminalized.

  10. he forgot to list dupont as the seventh group. they hate hemp fibers in lieu of their synthetic stuff.

  11. it’s funny my friend and I knew everything he said when we where teenagers. Then we agreed people are just too dumb to get it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.