Pubdate: Wed, 05 Feb 2014
Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Copyright: 2014 The Seattle Times Company
Contact:  http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/409
Author: Froma Harrop, Creators.com

THE CLASS WAR ON DRUG USERS

Philip Seymour Hoffman's death at the end of a heroin needle again
spotlights the dangers of a poisonous drug. And so did the Vermont
governor's plea last month to confront the "full-blown heroin crisis"
plaguing his rural state.

His population is far poorer and more isolated than an Oscar-winning
actor in New York's Greenwich Village. But though drug overdoses are
democratic in choosing victims, the War on Drugs is anything but.

Every year, billions of dollars pours down the War on Drugs drain, and
the drugs are cheaper and easier to find than ever. The war enriches
dealers by constricting the supply while turning addicts into
criminals afraid to publicly confront their drug use.

Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin wants to use the moment of arrest as an
opportunity to steer drug users into treatment instead of prison. He
wants to treat addiction as the medical problem it is.

That approach costs far less. Jailing someone in Vermont for a week
costs $1,120. A week at a state drug-treatment center costs $123.

Our less-than-compassionate conservatives can't get this in their
head. With some noble exceptions, Republicans remain intent on
treating drug users as reprobates, especially if they are poor.

Note the reasoning of Trey Radel, the Florida tea party Republican
recently convicted of cocaine possession. The then U.S. House rep was
under the impression that with some inpatient treatment and prayer, he
would become "a better man for southwest Florida" and pick up where he
left off.

Resign in disgrace? Not him; he had a "disease." Join the half-million
Americans in prison for drug violations? Never considered. (Radel
eventually gave in to pressure and quit the House seat.)

Not long before, Radel had joined fellow Republicans in a vote
requiring food stamp applicants to pass drug tests before receiving
benefits. Some Democrats asked why they didn't demand drug tests for
recipients of federal oil subsidies or farm insurance. Sadly, we know
the answer.

So continues a non-compassionate tradition of making life harder for
those already having it hard. Two years ago, for example, U.S. Rep.
Jack Kingston, R-Ga., proposed forcing states to drug-screen
applicants for unemployment insurance.

In 1998, then-U. S. Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., pushed through an
amendment to the Higher Education Act that denied federal aid to any
student having committed a drug offense. A Souder spokesman explained,
"American taxpayers should not be subsidizing the educations of
convicted drug dealers or drug users."

Oddly, rapists, armed robbers and even murderers who had done their
time qualified for college aid. The law was later modified to punish
only those who committed drug offenses while in college.

Of course, the drug-offending children of rich parents were not
affected, because they didn't need student aid. They were also less
likely to get caught and, if they did, could afford better lawyers.
But hundreds of thousands of low- and moderate-income students were
denied federal aid, often for being found with a stick of marijuana.

(Souder left Congress in 2010 when it was learned that he had an
affair with a female staffer.)

Different rules certainly apply at the top of the power pyramid. Avid
drug warrior George W. Bush had admitted to smoking pot and refused to
deny cocaine use - while assuming none of this should disqualify him
from being president.

The current White House occupant, Barack Obama, confessed to using
both substances. Obama has not been a tiger on changing the drug laws,
though he's going easier on marijuana.

The War on Drugs is above all a class war on drug users. Conceding
this ugly reality is the first step in recovery toward a fair drug
policy - and one that might do some good.  
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D