TRYING TO TALK DURING THE WAR ON DRUGS

Last week Gov. Douglas demonstrated he would rather grab a sound byte
than enter into discussion to change failed policy.

The war on drugs is failed policy. Windsor County State's Attorney
Robert L. Sand is trying to start a dialogue to deal with this failed
policy. In response to Sand's efforts, Gov. Douglas ordered law
enforcement officers to send Windsor County drug cases to Bill
Sorrell, Attorney General for the State of Vermont, instead of to Sand.

To give a sense of the dialogue Mr. Sand wants to start, I give up my
column to his op-ed piece, originally printed in January and February
2007 in the Rutland Herald, the Barre Times Argus, and the Valley
News of White River Junction.

Here is Sand's piece in its entirety. It's well worth reading:

"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:

If we are serious about addressing substance abuse, why do we treat
addicts as criminals?

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?

Why (do many) reject a regulatory approach to drugs, yet we regulate
alcohol and tobacco, two highly addictive and dangerous substances?

If a regulatory approach would increase health care costs, would
those costs be more than offset by savings in the criminal justice system?

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."