Pubdate: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 Source: Times Argus (Barre, VT) Copyright: 2007 Times Argus Contact: http://www.timesargus.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/893 Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Marijuana) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?159 (Drug Courts) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/heroin.htm (Heroin) DIVERSIONARY TACTICS Windsor County State's Attorney Robert Sand has been trying for years to stimulate a discussion about how we handle crimes involving drugs. Gov. James Douglas now has obliged him. Sand gained notice last week when he decided that a 61-year-old Windsor lawyer and part-time family court judge would go to diversion rather than face felony drug charges after authorities found two and a half pounds of marijuana at her house. Douglas responded to that decision by ordering state police to direct all drug cases in Windsor County to the attorney general or to the U.S. attorney instead of to Sand. Sand decided diversion was right in the case of Martha Davis because she was a first-time offender with no criminal record. There was no evidence that she was trafficking in drugs or furnishing marijuana to other people. Diversion is designed to handle this sort of case in a constructive manner, requiring offenders to accept responsibility by completing community service and drug treatment, when appropriate. Douglas, however, viewed Davis' offense as too serious for diversion. He has been forward-thinking on drugs, promoting the development of more treatment options and the increased use of drug courts. But he has also been tough, bolstering enforcement efforts against the threat of dangerous drugs. The Davis case raises a number of questions. There may have been no evidence that Davis was furnishing marijuana for others, but the quantity seized by authorities suggests that she might have been. And if she was furnishing marijuana to a half dozen friends, what do we think of that? Sand has become well known for advocating decriminalization of some drugs and for his belief that society has been harmed more by our reaction to marijuana than by the smoking of the plant itself. It is a reality that marijuana is prevalent in society -- not as prevalent as alcohol, but not exactly scarce. Ask any 16-year-old. In fact, the latest survey of risky behavior by young people in Vermont found that more than one-fifth of Vermonters from eighth to 12th grade had smoked marijuana. Use of marijuana by young people in Vermont has declined by about one-third in the past eight years, but Vermont remains among the leaders, along with the other New England states and Montana and Oregon, for marijuana use by young people. We know that marijuana has its dangers. It can be abused, and it can serve as a gateway to the use of more dangerous drugs. Public policy that encourages its use or makes it more readily available ought to be rejected. But drug policy that doesn't distinguish between small and large dangers wastes the time and resources of public officials and will end up throwing small-time marijuana users into jail next to big-time heroin dealers. That's why a range of responses to the variety of drug offenses is in order and why diversion has a role to play. A 16-year-old found with a six-pack of beer will frequently be sent to diversion. So would a 25-year-old with a small Baggie of marijuana. A professional woman nearing retirement age with two and a half pounds of marijuana challenges our willingness to be lenient because of doubt about her intentions. But Sand was right in noting there was no reason to believe Davis represented a danger to society, even if she might have been endangering the clarity of her own thinking. It is the purpose of diversion boards to require offenders to own up to their behavior, which means the board in Windsor County is likely to get the straight story on what Davis intended with all that marijuana. And it is likely to get a promise, on penalty of criminal prosecution, to steer clear of behavior that would be dangerous for her or others. That is likely to be a better outcome than might be achieved by criminal prosecution. Douglas' vigilance with regard to the drug problem has been admirable. He is likely to view Sand's interest in decriminalization with misgivings, and so he probably saw a chance to make a point about the need to stay tough on drugs. But there is also a need, as Sand has said, not to let drugs make us "crazy," by which he means allowing them to distort our public policy to such an extent that justice and the social good take a back seat to our ardor in saying no to drugs. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake