Pubdate: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 Source: City Paper (MD) Copyright: 2003 Baltimore City Paper Contact: http://www.citypaper.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/610 Author: Jason Wertz IT'S HIGH TIME I write in response to "Drug of Choice" by Jamil Roberts (Mobtown Beat, June 25). While I agree with most of the findings and recommendations of Baltimore's 2003 Grand Jury Report, which suggests a two-prong economic solution to the drug epidemic in Maryland, I think the citizens of Baltimore would be confused without some clarification of the facts and a formal call for officials to actually implement these recommendations. First of all, the Grand Jury is suggesting (just as they have in past years) that the demand side of drug abuse be reduced though a "continuum of care" provided to existing addicts, while the supply side of drug sales be reduced by removing drugs from the black market and providing them medically to addicts (not legalization), effectively dropping the market price of drugs and eliminating the majority of profit for criminal organizations and drug dealers, while making treatment and recovery safer and cheaper for addicts. These suggestions are all fine and good, and as an economist they seem ideal, but this 2003 recommendation by the Grand Jury is the same perfectly reasonable and logical solution for the city of Baltimore that it was in 1995, when the grand jury made the same recommendations, only without specifics. The problem therefore seems to lie with the implementation of these ideas, not the formulation of them, and politicians and elected officials seem deathly afraid to take on drugs as an issue other than to crack down on crime. I would like to clarify a few facts Mr. Roberts may have misread or misinterpreted when writing this article. He stated that this year's 2003 Grand Jury Report is "a far cry from the finding of a 1995 Baltimore grand jury report that advocated for the decriminalization of marijuana but found that legalizing other illicit substances would be unacceptable." This is wrong. In fact, the 1995 grand jury recommended the same thing that this year's grand jury recommended--medicalization of illegal drugs--although in 1995 they were reluctant to recommend particular solutions. The only differences in the 1995 recommendation and the findings this year are the specific recommendations provided for reducing both the supply and demand sides of the drug market. No grand jury in Maryland has ever recommended the legalization of narcotic drugs, including this year's grand jury. Other than the decriminalization of marijuana, only medicalization was recommended for harder drugs. Legalization was never a suggestion. All in all, drugs are a part of human culture and human existence, as they always have been. To try and eliminate drugs and drug use is ridiculous, and we as freedom-loving Americans need to stop revisiting these ideas that don't work. Baltimore has spent billions on the "Believe" campaign, and countless millions more on drug addicts and crimes directly or indirectly related to the drug market. I think it's time we start believing in our own ability to make this change, and stop merely suggesting one. Jason Wertz Director, National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws of Maryland Baltimore - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom