THE TIME HAS COME TO STOP THE WAR AND REFORM OUR DRUG POLICIES

The time has come for peace talks in the war on drugs.

It's not time to cut and run or to declare victory and head home. Nor
is it time to encourage or tolerate violations of existing law.
Instead, it's time to devise an intelligent exit strategy, one that
includes consideration of a regulated public health approach to drugs
instead of our current criminal justice model.

As a career prosecutor, I see strong indications that our enforcement
model may actually be counterproductive to public and personal safety.
Violence spawned by the war on drugs continues to plague our
communities. Violence exists in the form of assaults and murder by
drug sellers as a result of deals gone awry or territorial disputes.

We see violence in the form of robberies and burglaries by users
stealing money or guns to purchase or trade for drugs.

And, to a much lesser extent, we see random violence caused by
drug-impaired people unwilling or unable to control their behavior.

Drug policy reform, to include regulated access to drugs, could
substantially reduce all three types of drug crimes.

Any inquiry into drug policy must answer five critical questions: 1)
If we are serious about addressing substance abuse, why do we treat
addicts as criminals? 2) Given the addictive and dangerous nature of
certain drugs, why do we allow criminals to control their distribution
- -- criminals with a financial interest in finding new customers and
keeping others addicted? 3) Why does this newspaper (Editorial Dec. 6,
2006) reject a regulatory approach to drugs yet we regulate alcohol
and tobacco, two highly addictive and dangerous substances? 4) If a
regulatory approach would increase health care costs, would those
costs be more than offset by savings in the criminal justice system?
and, 5) If our current approach is working, why have drug use,
potency, arrest, and incarceration rates increased and not decreased
as enforcement expenditures have gone up?

What about young people and access to drugs?

Would a regulatory approach result in an increase in use by those most
susceptible to the damaging effects of drugs?

Maybe, but not necessarily so. Many adolescents will tell you it is
easier to get marijuana than it is to get alcohol.

This suggests a regulatory approach might contain drug use by
minors.

Moreover, if we intelligently reallocated criminal justice dollars
into education and drug prevention, we might minimize the allure of
these "forbidden fruits" and not see an escalation in drug use.

Drug policy reform should appeal to a broad political
spectrum.

Reform would allow us to treat addicts more compassionately and
effectively. It would remove government from the private choices of
adults.

And it could result in substantial savings by reducing criminal
justice and correctional expenditures. To suggest that proposing
reform is tantamount to "being soft on drugs" is to reduce a highly
complex issue into a one-dimensional catch phrase.

We can, and must, be more thoughtful than that.

There are no easy answers in the drug policy debate.

And certainly there are more questions to be asked than those raised
above.

But we must ask the questions.

And we must ask them not only of our state elected officials and
policy makers but also of our congressional delegation. The drug
problem is both a state and federal issue.

With the recent elections, Vermont now has substantial power in the
Congress -- power that can bring resources to the state but also power
that can influence change.

Even if Vermonters sought a bold and courageous new approach to drug
policy, the federal government might seek to stifle innovation. The
states and the federal government must try to work in partnership on
these issues.

The war on drugs is a war on people.

The time has come to discuss a better approach to this vexing
problem.

I look forward to the discussion.

Robert L. Sand is Windsor County state's attorney.