.. . AND IN OTHER DRUG NEWS
Copyright (c) 1997, The Providence Journal Company

The Connecticut General Assembly's bipartisan Program
Review and Investigations Committee, the Connecticut Law
Revision Commission and a special study panel appointed by
Gov. John Rowland have more or less simultaneously rendered
a collective verdict on state drug policy and a
recommendation for a new and better policy. That policy
might be as applicable to other states as to the Nutmeg
State.

The verdict: Current state drug policy does not work. It
is chaotic, disorganized, and expensive. What is that
policy? Zero tolerance of drug use. That means maximum
punishment of all forms for all manner of users. And that
in turn means: Build more prisons. The state has four
times as many prisoners as it did 15 years ago. Roughly a
third of those who are in prison are there on drug charges,
and many others are there for crimes stemming from, or
directly related to, their drug habits.

The state spends more on prisons than it does on higher
education. It costs $ 25,000 a year to house and provide
health care for a prisoner. And what does the state get for
this? In prison, an addict generally receives a graduate
education in criminality.

Is all of this rational? All three panels say no. The
recommendations of the three panels? Again, more or less
unanimous: Put more emphasis on treatment, less on
imprisonment. They are dead on. State drug policy should
shift to sentencing the drug user to drug therapy and
rehabilitation, and increasing the availability of
Methadone where needed. Such a policy would be a whole lot
cheaper, and more rational and humane. It would do what has
to be done anyway, but treat up front the abuser as well as
restrict his freedom. It would do so before the person
becomes a chronic offender, hardened by years of abuse and
criminal activity.

The drug taker now gets drug treatment in prison, which
he generally cannot get on the outside without being
wealthy or criminalizing himself. He must get that
treatment because the state has a legal and moral
obligation to provide medical care to its wards. Question:
Shouldn't the same obligation apply before the junkie
knocks off a convenience store somewhere?

State Rep. Michael Lawlor, chairman of the House
Judiciary Committee, is leading a drive for a saner state
drug policy, and is using the reports of the three panels
as fodder. His message is not legalization, or even
decriminalization, but treatment instead of
criminalization.

Mr. Lawlor's premises are simple. The state can't afford
to keep building prisons at this rate (especially since the
state is looking for savings so the governor can deliver a
promised tax cut). We are multiplying criminals instead of
abolishing drug abuse. The drug war has not quenched
demand or supply, and there are not enough cops and courts
and prisons in the world to do so. Finally, if the state
winds up providing treatment anyway, why wait? Why not cut
out the prison part of the equation when and where
possible?

All of this is just common sense. It also makes good
fiscal sense. And it is certainly smart criminal justice.
But what is the governor's response thus far? It is that
John Bailey, the chief state's attorney, does not approve
of such a change in direction for drug policy. The
governor's press officer says: "In general, he agrees with
Jack Bailey and does not support any weakening of the
punitive measures currently in place. . . ."

The Rowland response suggests that the state is wasting
its time when it studies policy problems. (Why did Mr.
Rowland bother appointing a group to look into the drug
issue?) The governor ought to at least consider the panels'
findings and make up his own mind. Mr. Rowland may give
drug policy a second look after he takes a second look at
state budget numbers. He, not Mr. Bailey, is charged with
directing public policy in the state. He, not Mr. Bailey,
must build and fund any new prisons.