Pubdate: Sun, 25 Oct 2009
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Page: 4B, Outlook Section
Copyright: 2009 The Washington Post Company
Contact:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/491
Author: Peter Moskos
Note: Peter Moskos is an assistant professor at John Jay College of 
Criminal Justice and the author of "Cop in the Hood: My Year Policing 
Baltimore's Eastern District."

IF IT'S ON THE SHELVES, IT'S OFF THE STREETS

When an indoor public smoking ban took effect in the Netherlands in 
the summer of 2008, the worry wasn't so much for the one-third of 
Dutch adults who smoke cigarettes. Bars and restaurants went 
smoke-free without much problem.

A more intriguing concern was for the effect on the uniquely Dutch 
institution of marijuana-selling "coffee shops." If a place calls 
itself a coffee shop, that means three things: One, there is 
marijuana and hash for sale; two, for the price of a coffee, you may 
sit and smoke your own; and three, you will not be arrested.

The smoking ban does not apply to marijuana, but Dutch who smoke it 
almost always mix it with tobacco. So while the pot is still okay, 
the tobacco in the joint isn't. Larger coffee shops have built walls 
and separate smoking rooms. Smaller shops make people smoke outside 
or hope the authorities will simply tolerate a little illegal tobacco 
along with the marijuana.

The Dutch classify marijuana as a "soft drug," which means that, like 
alcohol and tobacco, it is best regulated through controlled 
distribution. "Hard drugs," such as cocaine and heroin, remain 
illegal. But personal drug use is more a health matter than an 
arrestable offense.

Even the Amsterdam police want to keep the coffee shops open. "Why 
push drug use underground?" asked Christian Koers, the police chief 
responsible for Amesterdam's red-light district. "Then you cannot 
control it, and it becomes more popular and more dangerous. "

This idea -- that drugs are both enjoyable and dangerous and thus 
better regulated than prohibited by government and sold by criminals 
- -- seems common-sense enough, even in America. Until now, the main 
opposition to a state's right to legalize marijuana has been the 
federal government. But last week, in a major policy shift, the U.S. 
Justice Department instructed federal prosecutors not to focus on 
"individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance 
with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana."

In a memo explaining the new guidelines, Deputy Attorney General 
David Ogden emphasized that the department is not ending the war on 
drugs. But it's the first time the federal government has paused and 
taken a small step back. And though the change will affect few, at 
least in some states doctors and terminal cancer patients should no 
longer fear federal arrest.

Thirteen U.S. states have already legalized medicinal marijuana in 
some way, and last week Wisconsin jumped on the bandwagon. "It's 
pretty hard to say that a doctor actually thinks marijuana would be 
helpful and the doctor can't prescribe it, whereas [he] could 
prescribe morphine," said Gov. Jim Doyle. "We prescribe much more 
dangerous drugs."

Certainly, the legalization of medicinal marijuana has not always 
been an unalloyed success. Dispensaries don't always make the best 
neighbors, and Los Angeles is trying to reduce their numbers. But it 
is nonetheless refreshing to see states and cities debating drug 
policy and regulation. And as that happens, we should notice how much 
easier it is to close a licensed store than an illegal drug corner.

Three years before I became a Baltimore police officer in 1999, I 
started my research with the Amsterdam police. The Dutch approach 
toward drugs, by and large, works. Without declaring a war, 
authorities there have managed to lower addiction rates, limit use 
and save lives. The United States, by contrast, spends $50 billion a 
year on its war on drugs and leads the world in illegal drug use, 
with millions of Americans regularly using marijuana, cocaine and ecstasy.

Clearly, what we're doing doesn't work.

There is little violence surrounding the private drug trade between 
friends, coworkers and family members. The real drug problem, along 
with addictive heroin and crystal meth, is illegal public dealing. In 
public drug markets, signs of violence are everywhere: Intimidating 
groups of youths stand on corners under graffiti memorializing slain 
friends; addicts roam the streets and squat in vacant buildings; 
"decent" people stay inside when gunshots ring out in the night.

As a police officer, I responded when citizens called 911 to report 
drug dealing. Those calls didn't tell me much, though, because I 
already knew the drug corners. And what could I do? When a police car 
pulls up to a drug corner, the corner pulls back. Dealers, friends, 
addicts and lookouts walk slowly away.

I didn't chase them. If I did, they'd ditch the drugs. What would I 
do if I caught them? Charge them with felony running? A smart dealer 
doesn't hold drugs and money and guns. He's got workers for that. 
Besides, an anonymous call to police doesn't give the legal "probable 
cause" needed for a search. So I'd walk up, perhaps frisk for weapons 
and stand there until "my" corner was clear.

But soon enough I'd have to answer another 911 call for drugs. And 
when I left, the crew would reconvene. One of my partners put it 
succinctly: "We can't do anything. Drugs were here before I was born, 
and they're going to be here after I die. All they pay us to do is 
herd junkies."

In Amsterdam, the red-light district is the oldest and most notorious 
neighborhood. Two picturesque canals frame countless small pedestrian 
alleyways lined with legal prostitutes, bars, porn stores and coffee 
shops. In 2008, I visited the local police station and asked about 
the neighborhood's problems. I laughed when I heard that dealers of 
fake drugs were the biggest police issue -- but it's true. If 
fake-drug dealers are the worst problem in the red-light district, 
clearly somebody is doing something right.

In another neighborhood in Amsterdam, a man caught breaking into cars 
was released pending trial. The arresting officer returned to him, 
along with his shoelaces and personal property, his heroin and drug 
tools. I was amazed. The officer admitted he wasn't supposed to do 
that; heroin is illegal. But the officer had thought it through: "As 
soon as he runs out of his heroin, he'll break into another car to 
get money for his next hit."

For the addict, the problem was drugs. But for the police officer, 
the problem was crime. It made no sense, the officer told me, to take 
the drugs and hasten the addict's next crime. The addict was not a 
criminal when he had drugs (beyond possessing them); he was a 
criminal when he didn't have drugs.

I asked the officer if giving drugs to addicts sends the wrong 
message. He said his message was simple: "Stop breaking into cars!" 
With a subtle smirk in my direction, he added, "It is very strange 
that a country as violent as America is so obsessed with jailing drug 
addicts." Indeed, Dutch policymakers plan, regulate, fix and 
pragmatically debate harms and benefits. Police in the Netherlands 
are not involved in a drug war; they're too busy doing real police work.

The results are telling. In America, 37 percent of adults have tried 
marijuana; in the Netherlands the figure is 17 percent. Heroin usage 
rates are three times higher in the United States than in the 
Netherlands. Crystal meth, so destructive here, is almost nonexistent 
there. By any standard -- drug usage rates, addiction, homicides, 
incarceration and dollars spent -- America has lost the war on drugs.

And just as escalating the drug war over the past three decades 
hasn't caused a decrease in supply and demand, there's no good reason 
to believe that regulating drugs instead of outlawing them would 
cause an increase. If it did, why are drug usage rates in the 
Netherlands lower? People start and stop taking drugs for many 
different reasons, but the law seems to be pretty low on the list. 
Ask yourself: Would you shoot up tomorrow if heroin were legal?

Nobody wants a drug free-for-all; but in fact, that's what we already 
have in many communities. What we need is regulation. Distribution 
without regulation equals criminals and chaos -- what police see 
every day on some of our streets. People will buy drugs because they 
want to get high, and the question is only how and where they will buy them.

History provides some lessons. The 21st Amendment ending Prohibition 
did not force anybody to drink or any city to license saloons. In 
1933, after the failure to ban alcohol, the feds simply got out of 
the game. Today, they should do the same -- and last week the Justice 
Department took a very small step in the right direction.

Without federal control, states, cities and counties would be free to 
bar or regulate drugs as they saw fit. Just as with alcohol and 
tobacco regulation, one size does not fit all; we would see local 
solutions to local problems.

Even without federal pressure, most states and cities would 
undoubtedly start by maintaining the status quo against drugs. That's 
fine. In these cases, police with or without federal assistance 
should focus on reducing violence by pushing the drug trade off the 
streets. An effort to shift the nature of the illegal trade is 
different than declaring a war on drugs.

Regulating and controlling distribution is far more effective at 
clearing the corners of drug dealers than any SWAT crackdown. One can 
easily imagine that in some cities -- San Francisco, Portland and 
Seattle come to mind -- alternatives to arrest and incarceration 
could be tried. They could learn from the experience of the Dutch, 
and we could all learn from their successes and failures.

Regulation is hard work, but it's not a war. And it sure beats herding junkies.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake