Pubdate: Sun, 09 Nov 2008
Source: Metrowest Daily News (MA)
Copyright: 2008 MetroWest Daily News
Contact:  http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/619
Author: Richard M. Evans
Note: Richard M. Evans is an attorney practicing in Northampton
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)

QUESTION 2 LANDSLIDE OPENS DRUG POLICY DEBATE

Don't look now, but the resounding two-to-one victory  of Question 2,
the marijuana decriminalization  initiative, may well turn out to be a
blessing to Gov.  Deval Patrick and the legislature as they face the 
current fiscal reckoning.

It's not that the new law will save a lot of money -  the proponents
claimed around $30 million, but even  that will not make a big
difference. What makes a big  difference is that for the first time,
voters statewide  have gone on record as supporting drug policy
reform,  providing the first opportunity in decades to rethink  the
laws that have flooded our courts, packed our  prisons and strained
our treasuries.

There are around 25,000 prisoners in Massachusetts  state and county
facilities, of which some 20 percent  are drug law violators. It costs
$43,000 to incarcerate  one prisoner for a year. That $215 million is
real  money, and doesn't even include costs of detection, 
apprehension, and prosecution.

Under the escalating drug war, costs have skyrocketed  to the point
that the Commonwealth grotesquely now  spends as much money for
incarceration as for higher  education. Illicit drug use, however, has
leveled out  at around 10 percent of the adult population, and of 
those users, only around .03 percent of them are  caught. Contrast
that with the 40 percent arrest rate  for violent crimes and 10
percent for property crimes.  In terms of efficacy alone, current laws
- - largely a  legacy of generations past - do not have much to  commend
them. The demand and supply of drugs hold  steady.

Serious rethinking might begin with a close look at  who, exactly, the
drug offenders are, and whether the  public safety requires their
imprisonment. The time has  come for legislative triage,
distinguishing between the  people who pose a risk to others, and
those who, in the  words of Georgia Corrections Commissioner Jim
Donald,  "we're just mad at." Reform should distinguish between 
predatory criminals who violate the rights of others,  and
non-predatory offenders whose consensual conduct is  complained of
only by the police.

Ronald Reagan, naturally, said it clearly: "Government  exists to
protect us from each other. Where government  has gone beyond its
limits is in deciding to protect us  from ourselves." Purging the
criminal justice system of  people we are protecting from themselves
could free up  hundreds of millions in criminal justice and 
incarceration savings, without threatening the public  safety.

Hopefully leaders will now emerge, not only in  politics, but in the
media, education, and certainly in  law enforcement to guide a new
public discussion of  this thorny but necessary topic. A good place to
start  is with some crucial questions that, until the Question  2
vote, few were ready to confront:

- - Is it realistic to think that continuing to pour  vast resources
into detection, enforcement, prosecution  and punishment, we will ever
achieve success in the  struggle against illegal drugs?

- - When we are "successful," how many more people will  be locked up,
and at what cost to taxpayers?

- - Where, exactly, is the line between abhorrent  conduct we punish and
abhorrent conduct we tolerate?

- - Does it make sense to conflate the concepts of drug  use, drug abuse
and drug addiction?

For decades, few politicians have dared to criticize  the laws lest
they be branded "soft on drugs" in the  next election. But in an era
of evaporating public  resources, the question is no longer whether
drug  offenders deserve our scorn, but whether they deserve  our
hospitality at $43,000 per year.

Billions have been spent in a mighty effort to fight  and condemn
drugs. Question 2 may well provide an  historic opportunity to come to
terms with them.

Richard M. Evans is an attorney practicing in  Northampton.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Seguin