Decriminalizing of Drugs Splits Law Enforcement

Wilbur

New Member
It would be a profound mistake to legalize drugs, according to Vermont's top law enforcement officer.

Public Safety Commissioner Kerry Sleeper said he disagreed strongly with one of the state's veteran prosecutors, Windsor County State's Attorney Robert Sand, who last week said he wanted to spur a dialogue to examine whether drug laws were really helping Vermonters. Sand said he favored the legalization of drugs — "to get drugs out of the hands of criminals."

Sleeper, who Friday accepted a $1.75 million federal grant from Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., to help fund Vermont's Drug Task Force, said that his main disagreement with Sand was over the effects of drug use.

"We're forgetting about protecting the people," Sleeper said, who noted that in his 30 years in law enforcement, starting with the Vermont State Police, that "law enforcement alone is not the answer."

"I don't ever want to see a Vermont where we have legalized drugs," Sleeper said, noting that Vermont, along with other states, has a problem with legal prescription drugs — both the abuse of those with legitimate prescriptions and the illicit street use of such drugs.

Sleeper predicted that if drugs were legalized there would be a 10-fold increase in the number of addicts, adding to already high health care costs.

"The social consequences of that is great — families are torn apart, and the impact on health care and mental health care is great," said Sleeper.

But one retired law enforcement official with a deep knowledge of the federal system said he agreed wholeheartedly with Sand's comments.

James Dean, a retired probation officer at U.S. District Court in Burlington said that the war on drugs is not working. Dean worked as a federal probation officer from 1976 to 1997. "I commend Windsor County State's Attorney Robert Sand for having the intellectual integrity and political courage to point out the self-defeating nature of our approach to drugs," Dean said.

Dean noted that prior to 1937, possession of marijuana was not a crime. And Dean, who has a master's degree in criminal justice, noted that the criminalization of ***** had its roots in prejudice against the Chinese workers of the mid-1800s. Before that, he noted, it was not illegal to have and use such drugs and many of the patent medicines of the 19th century contained *****.

"We have transformed what is undoubtedly a health problem into a criminal justice problem," he said of drug addiction.

Dean noted that tobacco is a far more dangerous substance to the public health, noting that millions of people have died from tobacco use.

"We do not classify tobacco as criminal," Dean said, noting it was a deliberate action by society.

"We are so far down the road of a criminalization policy that we think we have no other options whatsoever," Dean said, saying he hoped Sand's comments would spur a good dialogue on the issue.

In Dean's mind, the war on drugs is like the war in Iraq — it's not working and needs a major rethinking.

He compared the shift from gambling being largely illegal in the 1980s to now being generally accepted by American culture, thanks in part to a court ruling that made it legal for Native American tribes to host casinos.

Even if Vermont wanted to change its drug laws, it would run up against federal laws, he said.

Nonetheless, Dean said, "it's worthwhile discussing it and have people talk about it."

One state's attorney also favors a new look at Vermont's drug laws. Windham County State's Attorney Dan Davis said he hoped that the 2007 Legislature would look at decriminlizing small amounts of marijuana, to make it a civil penalty, not a criminal one.

Davis said that a bill introduced into the 2006 legislative session by Rep. David Deen, D-Westminster, would not have had his support because it was too broad.

But Davis said that he wanted Vermont's lawmakers to look at some of the consequences of drug convictions. According to Davis, any Vermonter with a drug conviction, however small the amount, is ineligible for a federal student loan.

Sand said that possession of small amounts of marijuana are already de facto decriminalized in most cases, he said, as most of the cases are referred to the court diversion program, which allows an offense to be wiped off the books through some sort of community service or restitution.

Sand, who has been a prosecutor in Windsor County for the past 15 years, said the reaction to his comments has been gratifying — that people are willing to talk about the issue.

He said he had only received one negative comment so far, and a lot of press attention and many positive comments.

"I've gotten a number of attorneys say to me — 'it's about time,'" said Sand. "And I've gotten folks to say that they are not sure they agree with me but they agree the current system is not working properly."

"I don't want criminals controlling the distribution of dangerous substances. I'd rather have a regulated marketplace," he said.


Newshawk: User - 420 Magazine
Source: Times Argus
Pubdate: 4 December 2006
Author: Susan Smallheer
Copyright: 2006 Times Argus
Contact: susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com
Website: Times Argus: Vermont News & Information
 
Unfortunately, a regulated marketplace isn't going to be much better than a black market. It may no longer be illegal, but the ones selling you the drugs still want to keep you addicted, don't give a damn about your well-being, and just want to make a lot of money. Trading one criminal for another. Still, legalization is ultimately the way to go. You won't see a business man walk out of his office and get shot up by rival business men because both sides are marijuana manufacturers :p
 
Maybe some one should point out that Drugs are leagal, Alcohal, Tobacco "I don't ever want to see a Vermont where we have legalized drugs," They are "Controlled Substnaces" Thats what drugs should be, controlled. The criminalization of opium was racist to the Chinese just like the criminalization of marijuana was racist to Mexicans. I know we aren't supposed to talk about other drugs than cannabis but this is circumstantial and within the article although it is sensored, some people may not know what you are talking about when you put *****, the medical drugs that it is referring to is ******** and *******.

EDIT: I took those names out of your reply too Brett..... we don't mention the names of those drugs here, that goes for you and any other member too. I do not agree with every policy here but we must adhere to them, I've seen first hand how the smallest mention of 'other drugs' INSTANTLY enables everyones disregard for the rule. With 2700 posts you've seen some threads get out of hand and as a moderator here I've had to address it many times, quite often it's started with the most innocuous mention of another drug & gets out of hand from there......
 
Brett2theMax said:
Maybe some one should point out that Drugs are leagal, Alcohal, Tobacco "I don't ever want to see a Vermont where we have legalized drugs," They are "Controlled Substnaces" Thats what drugs should be, controlled. The criminalization of opium was racist to the Chinese just like the criminalization of marijuana was racist to Mexicans. I know we aren't supposed to talk about other drugs than cannabis but this is circumstantial and within the article although it is sensored, some people may not know what you are talking about when you put *****, the medical drugs that it is referring to is ******** and *******.

EDIT: I took those names out of your reply too Brett..... we don't mention the names of those drugs here, that goes for you and any other member too. I do not agree with every policy here but we must adhere to them, I've seen first hand how the smallest mention of 'other drugs' INSTANTLY enables everyones disregard for the rule. With 2700 posts you've seen some threads get out of hand and as a moderator here I've had to address it many times, quite often it's started with the most innocuous mention of another drug & gets out of hand from there......

^ Yeah, what he said ^
 
Back
Top Bottom