Pubdate: Fri, 19 Apr 2002
Source: Daytona Beach News-Journal (FL)
Section: Community Voices
Website: http://www.n-jcenter.com/
Feedback: http://www.n-jcenter.com/letters.shtml
Address: PO Box 2831, Daytona Beach, FL 32120-2831
Contact:  2002 News-Journal Corp
Forum: http://www.news-journalonline.com/cgi-bin/forum/Ultimate.pl
Fax: 904-258-8465
Author: Dan Price
Note: Price, a local business owner and drug and alcohol rehabilitation 
volunteer, lives in Port Orange.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE DRUG WAR

The Supreme Court has ruled that residents of public housing can be evicted 
if anyone in the apartment is caught with drugs. The test case involved 
four elderly residents of an Oakland, Calif. public housing project. The 
following scenario is now ready to happen on a massive scale.

A person (elderly, disabled, single mother with kids etc) living in a 
federally funded housing project who has a relative or guest who gets 
caught with a little marijuana is now subject to eviction. There is no 
requirement that the person to be evicted had any knowledge of the drug 
use. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said "it is not absurd that a local 
housing authority may sometimes evict a tenant who had no knowledge of 
drug-related activity."

So now we have a situation where it is the responsibility of aged, disabled 
people, who have no legal investigative or arrest powers, to stop an 
activity that police with guns, badges, arrest and investigative authority 
and the backing of the courts have been unable to do. How are these people 
supposed to accomplish what the police have been unable to do after 32 
years, and hundred of billions of dollars in funding for the "War On Drugs"?

Of course, the total blame for this miscarriage of justice can not be laid 
at the feet of the police. However, Congress can be blamed.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, quoting Congress, wrote in the housing 
decision that "with drugs leading to murders, muggings, and other forms of 
violence against tenants, aggressive eviction policies are reasonable." He 
also cited Congress' desire to end "the reign of terror" in public housing.

This "reign of terror" from drugs, and now from public housing authorities, 
would not be possible if Congress had not passed these counterproductive 
drug laws. Our current drug laws have created a business opportunity for 
criminals that has a market and margin of profit that we legitimate 
businessmen can only envy. Due to the massive profits from artificially 
high prices caused by our prohibition, the drug business draws in ruthless 
people who commit all kinds of violent crimes to protect their businesses. 
Like any other profitable business, this has drawn in new "businessmen" 
which has resulted in an increased supply at a lower price.

According to figures from government sources, in 1981 a gram of pure heroin 
cost $2,000. In 1998, the price was down to $400. This is the result of an 
increased supply. We have seen the same thing happen with computers and 
cell phones.

Additionally, because of the addictive nature of the product, users will do 
whatever it takes to obtain the money to buy it. Very few violent crimes 
are committed because of the influence of hard drugs like cocaine and 
heroin on users. However, the same can't be said when the addict is getting 
the money to buy them.

If Congress wishes to end this "reign of terror" it must pass legislation 
which de-criminalizes marijuana and puts hard drugs on prescription to addicts.

By doing this we would free up a massive amount of police manpower and 
greatly reduce the court caseload. In 2000, there were 734,000 arrests for 
marijuana alone. This is total waste of police resources for something so 
benign as marijuana.

As for the hard drugs, I would suggest that an addict be allowed to go to a 
doctor and be tested to prove addiction. This would allow the doctor to 
determine how much of a drug was required to supply the addict for a 
24-hour period. The addict could pick up his clean daily supply of the drug 
for $5. The addict would be limited to a 24-hour supply that could be 
refilled every day. Because the addict only has a 24-hour supply, he would 
not share it.

This would have several benefits. First, it would put the drug dealers out 
of business because there would no longer be any profit. This would, in 
turn, eliminate the source of drugs to create new addicts. It would also 
eliminate the need for the addict to commit crimes to support the habit, 
thereby making us all safer. It would also end this insane practice of 
throwing elderly, sick people and single mothers with their children out of 
their homes because they did not enforce the laws that the police have been 
unable to.

While I realize that illegal drug abuse is dangerous, the end result of the 
abuse of heroin, cocaine or alcohol is the same. Jail time does nothing to 
help people overcome alcohol addition. We treat alcoholism as a medical 
problem. Why do we treat drug addicts as criminals when drug abuse too is a 
medical problem? We don't have doctors arresting people, nor do we have 
cops treating illness.

I am asking voters to contact their representatives and ask them to 
introduce legislation that will stop this miscarriage of justice. To allow 
this travesty of justice to continue is to allow the waste of taxpayers' 
money while more innocent victims bear the brunt of this fiasco we call the 
"War On Drugs."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth