Pubdate: Mon, 10 Feb 2014
Source: Republican & Herald (PA)
Copyright: 2014 Creators Syndicate
Contact:  http://republicanherald.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1047
Author: Froma Harrop, Creators Syndicate

FAIR DRUG POLICY MIGHT DO SOME GOOD

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 although drug overdoses 
are democratic in choosing victims, the War on Drugs is anything but.

Every year, billions of dollars pour 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.

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 for cocaine possession. The then-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.

In 1998, then-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.

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, although 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: Jay Bergstrom