WHY DO WE HAVE THEM?
By Bill Collins

Columnist, former Norwalk mayor

Drug wars bring us,

Many jobs;

And only hurt,

Those addict slobs.

Malcontents are forever complaining about Connecticut's criminal statutes.
Either they're too weak, or they're too tough. Take drug laws. There is
simply no satisfying the crusaders who say that they're doing their job.
Some even claim they're doing more harm than good. These crusaders, one
fears, are naive. Whatever the laws' original goals, there are many folks
who are pleased as punch with the results.

Happiest, perhaps, are Republicans. For them, drug laws have been a Godsend.
With the threshold for felonies now set so low, vast numbers of Americans
have all at once become criminals. And with the blatant racial and economic
profiling carried out by many police, those criminals turn out to be mostly
the poor. In other words, Democrats. Once convicted, of course, they can't
vote again for a long time. In some states, never. Our own House of
Representatives just considered a bill to at least let paroled felons vote,
but that idea was judged to be poison. Thus drug laws help happy Republicans
win elections.

They also help create jobs - good taxpayer-funded state jobs, with decent
pay and benefits. In 1985 there were 750,000 Americans behind bars. In 1998,
1.8 million. What a growth industry! Think of the increase in cops,
sheriffs, deputies, judges, jailers, prosecutors, and drug enforcement
agents. Wardens, and what-have-you. These workers are thrilled with the
current laws, and they constitute what has come to be termed the
Prison-Industrial-Complex. Such folks are enormously resistant to any
changes, which might reduce either their employment or their high esteem in
society. Their high priest in Connecticut is Chief State's Attorney John
Bailey.

Local police are also enthusiastic about the current system. They especially
love the asset forfeiture law. This allows them to confiscate property of
anyone even remotely connected with a drug crime, no matter how minor.
Generally the police keep the nifty cars for themselves. The houses get
sold, with proceeds going to better equip the department. That also allows
the town to cut back a bit on its budget. Cranky libertarians complain that
only 20 percent of the afflicted property owners ever even get charged with
a crime, let alone convicted. But nobody wants to upset such a good deal for
the cops.

Prison builders like our laws, too. There's a new 1,000-bed jail finished
every couple weeks, somewhere. Connecticut has at least its fair share. And
as long as our current administration is in charge, there won't be methadone
in any of them. That drug would help inmates begin to work their way off
heroin.

It's the drug dealers who love that part. No methadone means that when
inmates finally do get out, many are desperate for a fix. Thus our laws
provide dealers with an endless supply of customers and a regular thinning
out of competitors. Without such draconian rules, they might have to give up
their limos.

It's clear, then, that lots of diverse folks are delighted with the present
system. Many of them are influential, too. More than a few have boosted
their careers by flogging addicts and those who would treat addicts like
people.

So, is this what we had in mind when we first passed drug laws? No, probably
not. As I recall, we wanted to deter people from using drugs. But drugs are
as available today as ever, and usage remains remarkably constant. The
collateral damage, though, has been catastrophic - broken neighborhoods,
broken homes, broken lives.

Still, maybe there's a lesson here. If we punished smokers and drinkers the
way we punish addicts, we could spawn another whole new industry.

Bill Collins, former mayor of Norwalk, writes his column weekly.