In 1966, I was invited to become one of the six Reporters to the Joint Legislative Committee to Revise the Penal Code of the State of California. In keeping with a nationwide movement toward criminal-law reform, the California legislature had voted to undertake a careful examination and overhaul of its criminal laws, last completely revised in 1872. Since the task was extremely complex and time-consuming, it was decided that the initial drafting could best be done by a group of Reporters —professors of criminal law at California's major universities.

Through the luck of the draw, I received the drug laws as my first major item of concern. At that time, I knew essentially nothing about drugs and very little about the criminal law involving them—except for the fact that, as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in San Francisco for some years, I had prosecuted many violators of the federal drug laws, several of whom are still serving their sentences.

In undertaking my assignment, I began to read everything available on the drug laws and the drugs themselves, and to discuss the relevant issues with law-enforcement officials and the natural and social scientists most concerned. For reasons which will become clear as one proceeds through this book, it soon became apparent that the key problem in the drug area was the treatment of marijuana, and that until this issue was intelligently handled, progress in the far broader area of drug abuse would be impossible.

Concentrating, then, on the issue of marijuana, I concluded (whether rightly or wrongly, those who read this book, and the inevitable attacks upon it, will be able to tell) that the emperor, if not completely unclothed, was at least very badly underdressed. I have set out at some length the reasons for coming to this conclusion, discussing every study I was aware of that shed light on the issues and attempting, insofar as possible, neither to omit nor to distort.

Indeed, I have probably included too much, since on many occasions the reader may wonder, as I confess I often did, "Why spend so much time refuting this nonsense?" My only answers are that the information and arguments discussed have been put forth by reputable people, often in positions of some influence, and, as such, deserve some scrutiny; and second, that in a book such as this it is far better to be over- rather than under-inclusive.

This book, however, is not a mere academic exercise divorced from any passion. Although, like many Americans of my generation, I cannot escape the feeling that drug use, aside from any harm it does, is somehow wrong, I am deeply moved by the consequences of our present marijuana policy. As a lawyer and a teacher of law, I regard it as a matter of desperate urgency to repair the damaged integrity, credibility, and effectiveness of our criminal law; and as one who is constantly in contact with students I am deeply upset by anything that increases their alienation from traditional American values.

In reaching these conclusions, I do not mean to imply that the many persons, in responsible positions as well as in the gen-eral public, who have up to now regarded marijuana as so dangerous that it must be suppressed in order to maintain our society, were somehow actuated by improper motives, or were irresponsible or blind. Indeed, it would be especially hypocritical for me to allege this since, until I began my own study of the problem, it never occurred to me to ask more than whether the penalties for marijuana offenses were somewhat too stringent. It is easy to understand how, under the historical and social conditions present in this country at the time, the emergence of a strange intoxicant such as marijuana might have been felt to justify the official and popular apprehension it received. Nor is it difficult to see why in such a situation the first reaction would be an attempt at suppression of the drug—especially since at the time the social costs of enforcing the law were so much less than they are today.

Now, however, we have an increased familiarity with marijuana, from its wide use, from a more careful look at what has long been known about the drug, and from recent studies. Much more important, we are now aware of the enormous costs to our society of our present marijuana policy. I believe that we cannot delay facing this issue a great deal longer and that the only responsible course of action—indeed, in the long run, the only course of action available within the framework of a democratic society—is a liberalization of the marijuana law so extensive as to constitute an abandonment of primary reliance on the criminal law in this area.

In a preface, it is customary to thank all those whose help is visible in the final product. In this case, however, I am unable to do so, first because they are far too numerous, and second because their contributions are so intertwined with those of differing specialities that they would be most difficult to sort out. Nonetheless, without the wholehearted cooperation of the resources of more than one university community, this book would not have been possible.

The students in my drug-control seminars at both the Stanford and the University of California (Berkeley) law schools, though lacking the academic credentials, were invaluable both because they knew—often from personal experience—a great deal about the drug and its use, and because they were willing to work hard, honestly, and intelligently. Moreover, the pharmacologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, physicians, sociologists, anthropologists, historians, and criminologists who gave many hours of their time and checked over endless drafts know that my gratitude is forever theirs. It is customary to add at this point that any errors or distortions are my responsibility and not theirs. This, of course, is true; but, on the other hand, candor compels the acknowledgment that if, indeed, there are any errors or distortions, I will hold personally responsible those who allowed me to fall into error.

Finally with respect to the legislature's attempt to revise the penal code, the Preliminary Tentative Draft on Marijuana was issued in 1969 over the signatures of all the Reporters. It recommended the adoption of the vice model for marijuana and supported this recommendation with earlier versions of Chapters II, IV, V, VII, VIII, and the first half of IX. In some sense, this book is an effort to reach a tribunal of higher resort; because shortly after the release of the draft, the Legislative Committee summarily fired all of the Reporters and replaced them with a prosecutor from the attorney general's office.

London    J. K.
January 6, 1970