Hartford Mulls an Overhaul of Drug Laws

By CHRISTOPHER S. WREN

HARTFORD, Conn. Connecticut's state Legislature is considering
a major overhaul of its drug laws that would shift the emphasis from
punishment toward treatment of drug abuse as a public health problem, in
part as an attempt to reduce the costs of imprisonment.

Among the proposals are letting doctors prescribe methadone for patients
with a heroin problem, forcing more convicted criminals into drug
treatment programs and giving prosecutors the discretion to seek a
modest fine for possession of an ounce or less of marijuana.

Experts say that if the changes are enacted, even in part, Connecticut
would be ahead of much of the nation in implementing alternatives to the
laws that have packed courts and prisons with drug felons.

It is too early to say how much of the package will pass and in what form.
Gov. John Rowland says he supports more prevention and treatment
programs, but has threatened to veto anything that weakens penalties
against illicit drugs. "We're after the drug pushers," he said, "but the drug
users we're trying to help."

Some of the more audacious proposals have encountered resistance in
the General Assembly. A bill to make marijuana available to sufferers of
AIDS and other diseases was approved by the Public Health Committee,
only to stall this week for lack of sufficient votes in the Judiciary
Committee. Under the bill, state officials would have sought a waiver from
the Drug Enforcement Administration to allow controlled farming of
marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Similarly, a proposal to supply free heroin to hardcore addicts who fail
treatment was dropped before the legislation reached the Judiciary
Committee.

Still, legislators predict that some elements of the package will be enacted
before the Assembly adjourns in early June.

"By this year Connecticut will have radically reshaped its drug policy,"
said Rep. Michael Lawlor, DEast Haven, the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee.

Though Connecticut seems an unlikely laboratory for experimentation
with drug policy, it already leads many other states in offering drug
offenders alternatives to jail. It also passed, in 1981, what may be the
nation's first medical marijuana law, permitting doctors to prescribe the
drug for patients suffering from glaucoma and the side effects of
chemotherapy. The law has had no practical effect because no legal
supply of marijuana exists.

In going this far, Connecticut's legislators seem motivated more by
Yankee frugality than by a desire to break new ground.

"If there's a major change in Connecticut, it won't be because politicians
are more enlightened," Lawlor said. "It's because we don't have enough
money to spend on our current policy."

Connecticut, he said, now spends more to run its prisons about $400
million a year than on its public universities and colleges. The state's
prison population, he said, has grown from 3,800 inmates in 1980 to
about 15,000, nearly a quarter of whom are locked up for selling or
possessing drugs.

"I think every state is beginning to grapple with this in one way or
another," Lawlor said. "We've stumbled upon how to do this in a process
that's not politically radioactive."

Making addicted felons undergo treatment in prison, supporters of the
new proposals say, could reduce the likelihood of their reverting to crime
and addiction after they are released. And letting doctors prescribe
takehome doses of methadone as part of patient care would eliminate
the hassle and much of the stigma surrounding the synthetic opiate, which
blocks heroin craving and is now dispensed at special licensed clinics that
require patients to show up daily.

The proposals were drawn up by the Connecticut Law Revision
Commission, an advisory body to the General Assembly usually entrusted
with dissecting more arcane legal intricacies. David D. Biklen, the
commission's director, said he was asked to look at what was being tried
elsewhere and to prepare a list of options for Connecticut that stopped
short of legalizing drugs. Until now, he said, "No one had addressed a
comprehensive legislative strategy."

Rep. Ellen Scalettar, the vice chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said
that just discussing the alternatives was itself a breakthrough.

"There's been this political intimidation that if you even mention it, you're
soft on crime, you're for criminals," she said. "I think we'll get past
that."

Biklen cited other statistics supporting the contention that a new approach
would save the state money. It costs $25,000 a year to lock up a drug
offender, he said, compared with $8,000 to $10,000 to treat the
offender's drug habit. A task force on substance abuse, appointed by
Rowland, estimated that alcohol and drug abuse costs Connecticut $2.96
billion a year in medical and criminal justice expenses and lower
productivity in the workplace.

The commission's "policy options," as it called its recommendations, also
include creating more drug courts to send nonviolent offenders into
treatment programs, and requiring doctors and other health care
practitioners to undergo training on preventing and treating substance
abuse.

"We're beginning to understand that substance abuse is not just a criminal
justice issue; it's a public health issue," said state Sen. Toni Harp, DNew
Haven, cochairman of the Public Health Committee. "The more we
criminalize the problem, the more criminals we have to deal with. It's far
cheaper and more effective to get them treatment."

But other recommendations have raised hackles, like dropping penalties
for drug residues found in hypodermic needles and other paraphernalia,
increasing the number of needles and syringes that can be bought legally,
and punishing personal possession of an ounce of marijuana with a fine of
less than $100.

The chief state's attorney, John Bailey, complained that downgrading the
penalty for possessing small amounts of marijuana would send the wrong
message at a time when adolescent drug use is rising.

"What are we telling the children?" Bailey said, if getting caught with the
equivalent of 10 marijuana cigarettes became a less expensive offense
than driving too fast.

Bailey also opposed a move to drop the mandatory minimum sentence of
three years imposed on nonaddicted drug dealers convicted of selling
within 1,500 feet of a school, day care center or public housing project.
"Why change the law when we've cut cocaine use 50 percent in the last
10 years?" Bailey said. "Why throw in the towel?"

Sen. Thomas Upson, RWaterbury, who fought some of the proposed
provisions, expressed similar sentiments. "Either we're being tough or
we're not," he said. "Either we're treating drugs as an important crime or
we're not. You can't have any halfway, and this is halfway."

But Lawlor said that few serious people were willing to defend the current
system.

"The resistance is this overarching concern about looking like you're soft
on crime," he said. "People need to be reassured that we're not legalizing
drugs. Nobody is suggesting that."

Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company