Politicians are famous for many standpoints (and shifting thereof), but one position most politicians know they have to take is a tough view on crime. No matter whether the actual levels of crime are high or low, no politician can afford to be seen as “weak” on crime. Unfortunately, too many pols stake out such an aggressive attitude that their posturing leads them to enact stiff minimum sentencing guidelines and laws, increased mandatory sentencing bills, and other acts that too often rob the judiciary of the independence it used to have.

Here in California, a while back the “tough on crime” politicians decided it’d be a great idea to enact a “three strikes” bill; these habitual offender laws punish serious felonies by repeat criminals by requiring them to serve a minimum of 25 years and up to life in prison. One of the original catalysts for the legislation was the heinous kidnapping, molestation, and murder of Polly Klaas by Richard Allen Davis. Such a notorious case made it easy for the bill to be passed as Proposition 184 in 1994.

Unfortunately, the law was poorly written and allowed no leeway for consideration by judges to examine the circumstances of the case, and an awful lot of small-time losers got caught up. Leandro Andrade, for example, received a minimum of 50 years in prison for the theft of nine videotapes from K-Mart. Another loser, Jerry DeWayne Williams, stole slices of pizza from a group of kids not too far from here, and ended up being sentenced to prison for 25 years [it later got reduced to six years, when some of his priors were thrown out in an attempt to make the sentence more proportional to the crime].

Some people don’t have any problem with the law, and argue that the revolving door means minor criminals like Andrade and Williams are merely serving all their time at once, rather than going in and out of the system. But two problems here: one is, as I mentioned, the proportionality of the crime– should someone who is sentenced to prison for rape or murder serve less time than some selfish, sorry-ass excuse for a human being who steals a slice of pizza? Both should be punished, both should serve time, but the sentence should be proportionate to the crime.

The second problem is that there’s no carrot provided here- just a stick. Plea bargaining isn’t as great a tactic as it used to be, because prosecutors are now forced to take minor cases such as these to trial, which depletes and weakens the already limited resources of the judicial system. Additionally, a more serious consequence is that these “small fry” take up space that could be used to house a more violent or dangerous criminal.

There have been attempts to soften or reverse California’s Three Strikes law– but the Supreme Court in 2003 ruled that the law didn’t violate the Eighth Amendment (”Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”). However, the voters here in California voted on Propositon 36 in 2000, which changed the terms for those convicted of drug possession– these people would be directed to drug treatment, rather than prison. But a subsequent proposition in 2004, Prop 66, failed. What 66 would have done was require that the “third strike” be “violent” or “serious” in order to merit the minimum 25 years behind bars.

Here we are today, in 2007. California has 171,000 prisoners in prisons that were only meant to hold 100,000, and our governor has decided that the best way to resolve the problem of overcrowding is to farm out prisoners to other states. Yep, that’s right– California’s problem is now your problem. Never mind the fact that other states are struggling with their own difficulties with prison overcrowding. Tiny little Maine, for example, with the nation’s lowest incarceration rate, has a prison that was built to hold 522 souls, but currently houses 689. Guess Maine will just have to take its share of our prisoners. Maybe they can go back to the 1950s and study how frat guys managed to stuff themselves in phone booths and cars, because if all the states continue at the rate they’re going with their prisons, then that’s where we’re headed.

Fortunately for Maine, Tennesee, Arizona, and a host of other states, a Superior Court judge ruled against Schwarzenegger’s shipping our cons out to you. In the wake of that ruling, Der Gropenfuhrer has decided that perhaps early release isn’t such a bad idea after all.

While I think early release is one potential option, and is infinitely better than throwing more cash at prison guards and their unions, construction firms and other groups that benefit from the building of even more prisons (yep, let’s build prisons! Not homes, apartments, schools, or other buildings that will serve society– nope, dammit, prisons are our growth industry!), I think there’s an even better solution, and one that will free up the system from top to bottom.

Decriminalize drugs. All of them.

Yep, you heard me (and maybe secretly, Rush Limbaugh is in favor too– who knows?). Get rid of all laws that ban drugs. Make every pharmaceutical legal.

Here’s why: for one thing, criminalization often doesn’t work. Look at Prohibition, for example. Banning booze may have been manna from heaven for the teetotalers and a total victory for the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (You go, Carrie Nation!), but it was disastrous in many ways. It was disastrous enough that the nation got wise and repealed Prohibition just over a decade later. This, coincidentally (or perhaps not…) was about the time that authorities started taking a serious look at drugs, and banning them. Formerly legal drugs such as cocaine and marijuana became restricted and eventually outright illegal. While there were most certainly drug addicts prior to criminalization, I’d be willing to bet that the number of addicts has soared since, hand-in-hand with a proportionate rise in organized drug dealing and associated criminal behavior.

By decriminalizing drugs, we can then regulate their use, just as we now regulate alcohol and tobacco. We can insist that the drugs be sold only at pharmacies and other restricted locations. We can tax these drugs and their manufacturers, and use the excess cash for drug treatment and education programs, and any additional cash beyond that can go to other purposes.

“But drugs won’t bring in that much money,” you say. Oh? You really think so? Just last year in Washington State, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported that weed passed cherries to become the state’s eighth-ranked agricultural commodity. Imagine what kind of taxes you could raise on $270 million worth of pot?

Another reason to decriminalize pot (and other drugs) is to force the regulation of drug fields. Right now, dope is banned, so growers take extreme measures as to where they grow the plants. Right now, there’s a serious problem here in California with big drug dealers growing their plants in state and national parks. This article in the San Francisco Chronicle from last year discusses a huge pot farm in and around Point Reyes. I’ve also read about farms being spotted in Sequoia National Park. Unfortunately, our parks systems, both state and national, have gotten the shaft where funding is concerned, so they have a difficult enough time as it is manning museums and information booths, much less controlling what happens in these parks and in the backcountry.

If drugs were decriminalized, these fields could then be planted in the open, on lands that are meant to be tilled, rather than in our parks and wildernesses. Of course, once they’re out in the open, they can then be regulated and taxed just like any other commodity. I’d rather have a bunch of dope fields in the Central Valley next to the fruit orchards than have a bunch of jumpy, hostile, gun-toting drug dealers camping out guarding illicit drug patches in national forests that are meant to be for everyone, not just for drug dealers.

Lest you think I’m just some idealistic leftie with his head in the clouds, there are others who are urging decriminalization/legalization. There was an excellent Op-Ed piece in the Seattle Times a while back, written by a former cop, who also feels it’s time to legalize drugs. He made many of the same points (and more) that I’ve made here. It’s worth a read.

At the very least, I’d like to see less handwringing about prison overcrowding and the seeming failure on the so-called “War on Drugs,” and a little more common sense and a willingness to think outside the box and look at untried alternatives. If something isn’t working, why keep doing the same thing over and over? Why not try something new? If that doesn’t work, you can at least say that you’ve tried it, and can then move on to another possible solution.