Losing a Costly Battle

HOW TO BEAT CITY CRIME: LEGALIZE DRUGS

Taking the control of Hartford's $42 million drug market from
criminals and placing it in the hands of citizens who will be
responsible for regulating it seems a strikingly sensible strategy.

Unless we try a new approach that includes regulating and taxing the
use of marijuana, and emphasizing harm reduction measures for problem
drug users by getting them into treatment rather than jail, the trade
in illegal drugs will continue to ravage our Capital. Although the
serious crime rate is lower, homicides (directly related to the drug
trade) are up. While large employers, cultural institutions and
excellent restaurants attract many visitors to Hartford daily,
hundreds more stay away for fear of violence.

New downtown housing has attracted many young professionals and empty
nesters to the city. Many potential residents, however, stay away,
inhibiting needed downtown retail development. The fear of crime,
spawned mostly by the illegal drug market, is considered by experts
to be the single greatest barrier to economic development in our cities.

In my research at Central Connecticut State University, I have
attempted to quantify the cost of drug enforcement and to gather
information concerning drug use from federal, state and city
statistics. This kind of specific data about Hartford is not readily
available and I was conservative in my calculations.

To determine how much money is exchanged to purchase drugs in
Hartford, for example, I useddata from the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, the U.S. Census Bureau and my academic research. The
calculations show illegal drug purchases in Hartford total a
startling $42 million annually. This would be a good gross income for
a successful Walmart. Unlike Walmart, this is an untaxed criminal enterprise.

Although 88 percent of Connecticut's illegal drug overdoses occur in
the suburbs, Hartford is the regional source for illegal drug
purchases. It is notable that 39 percent of those arrested in
Hartford for drug offenses are from outside the city, according to
Hartford police arrest records for the six months from December 2008
to June 2009.

We pay an extraordinary expense for drug-related law enforcement: the
equivalent of $1,000 each year for man, woman and child in the
country. Federal and state governments spend $50 billion each year
trying to interrupt the flow of drugs into the U.S., and health care
costs related to illegal drugs are $15.8 billion each year.

Critics say the War on Drugs is a losing one and suggest we consider
alternative strategies. When we do, however, we step gingerly:
approving of medical marijuana, equalizing penalties for crack and
powder cocaine, reconsidering commercial hemp agriculture.

We need to be bolder. Addiction, although tragic, is not a crime. It
is a medical, social and public health issue. A criminal conviction
does not help problem drug users; ironically it may, however, provide
access to treatment while incarcerated. In spite of the danger of
illegal drugs, one can argue that absent direct harm to others, what
we put into our bodies is a private matter. Only 2 percent of those
who have smoked marijuana (estimated at 42 percent of the population
over the age of 12) go on to hard drug use. Reported deaths from
marijuana are so rare as to be statistically insignificant. Alcohol
and tobacco -- legal drugs -- kill more than half a million people in
the U.S. annually.

Here is a proposed alternative strategy:

1) Regulate and tax marijuana as we do alcohol and tobacco, setting a
legal age minimum. Use the taxes for education, prevention and
treatment of addiction and its underlying causes.

2) Make heroin and cocaine legally available to public health clinics
for the treatment of addiction, where appropriate, alongside methadone.

3) Avoid prison for nonviolent drug offenses, opting for treatment
and counseling.

4) Prosecute those who commit crimes to obtain drugs, who drive under
the influence of drugs and who grow, distribute or sell drugs illegally.

In a number of countries, Switzerland and Holland for example, where
the above measures have been used, there has been no appreciable
increase (or even a decrease) in drug use. Crime has fallen
dramatically. Experts say that most of the chaos associated with the
illegal drug market is the result of prohibition rather from the
drugs consumed. Just as we learned from alcohol prohibition, the
prohibition itself spawns increased crime and violence.

Pursuing a failed strategy that has yielded tragically bad results
makes no sense. It's time for a new approach.