News (Media Awareness Project) - US MO: Jackson County's Anti-Drug Tax Debated |
Title: | US MO: Jackson County's Anti-Drug Tax Debated |
Published On: | 2003-08-02 |
Source: | Kansas City Star (MO) |
Fetched On: | 2008-01-19 17:54:07 |
JACKSON COUNTY'S ANTI-DRUG TAX DEBATED
Supporters and opponents of Jackson County's anti-drug tax on Friday debated
whether too much tax revenue goes to law enforcement rather than to
treatment.
On Tuesday, voters will decide whether to renew the Community-Backed
Anti-Drug Tax, called COMBAT. The quarter-cent sales tax, set to expire in
March 2004, will generate about $19.8 million this year for law enforcement,
drug treatment and prevention.
Friday's debate took place during the taping of KCPT-TV's Week In Review.
The discussion aired Friday evening and will be rebroadcast at 11 a.m.
Sunday.
Representing the tax supporters were Jackson County Prosecutor Michael
Sanders and COMBAT Program Director Jim Nunnelly. Speaking against the
measure were Richard Tolbert of the Organized Opposition to the Jackson
County Anti-Drug Tax, and Patrick Sumner, a columnist for a community
newsletter opposed to COMBAT.
Sanders said about 71 percent of COMBAT's revenue goes to drug treatment and
prevention and 28.5 percent goes to law enforcement including the
prosecutor's office.
Tolbert disagreed.
"That's simply not true," said Tolbert, who said the amount going to
treatment and prevention was closer to 28.5 percent. "Mike has his numbers
backward."
At issue was whether COMBAT-funded court and jail programs should be
categorized as treatment or law enforcement. One of those court programs,
drug court, allows nonviolent, drug-addicted offenders to avoid jail by
receiving treatment.
Nunnelly said it was a treatment program, but Tolbert said drug court was
law enforcement.
"I think it's very misleading that you (Tolbert) would take deferred
prosecution (drug court) and call it law enforcement," Nunnelly said.
Tolbert replied, "I don't want to quibble about programs. If these programs
are so worthwhile, let them take a higher priority at the county's annual
budgeting process."
Tolbert also said COMBAT was ineffective because drugs were as or more
plentiful now than before the tax's approval.
Sanders disagreed.
"Mr. Tolbert has no data to back that up," Sanders said. "If you look at the
hard data that law enforcement has, $300 million in narcotics have been
removed from the streets."
Sanders credited COMBAT with closing 7,200 drug houses, providing 4,300
treatment slots annually and reducing drug use among area teens.
Sumner criticized COMBAT's funding of Drug Abuse Resistance Education, or
DARE. The program uses police officers to teach schoolchildren about the
dangers of drugs.
Sumner cited national studies that said the program was ineffective at
preventing drug use.
"I don't believe we should have police officers training children about
these things," Sumner said. "We should have somebody with a social welfare
degree or maybe a reformed drug addict would be more effective."
Sanders said COMBAT allows officials to expand local DARE programs to make
them more effective.
Supporters and opponents of Jackson County's anti-drug tax on Friday debated
whether too much tax revenue goes to law enforcement rather than to
treatment.
On Tuesday, voters will decide whether to renew the Community-Backed
Anti-Drug Tax, called COMBAT. The quarter-cent sales tax, set to expire in
March 2004, will generate about $19.8 million this year for law enforcement,
drug treatment and prevention.
Friday's debate took place during the taping of KCPT-TV's Week In Review.
The discussion aired Friday evening and will be rebroadcast at 11 a.m.
Sunday.
Representing the tax supporters were Jackson County Prosecutor Michael
Sanders and COMBAT Program Director Jim Nunnelly. Speaking against the
measure were Richard Tolbert of the Organized Opposition to the Jackson
County Anti-Drug Tax, and Patrick Sumner, a columnist for a community
newsletter opposed to COMBAT.
Sanders said about 71 percent of COMBAT's revenue goes to drug treatment and
prevention and 28.5 percent goes to law enforcement including the
prosecutor's office.
Tolbert disagreed.
"That's simply not true," said Tolbert, who said the amount going to
treatment and prevention was closer to 28.5 percent. "Mike has his numbers
backward."
At issue was whether COMBAT-funded court and jail programs should be
categorized as treatment or law enforcement. One of those court programs,
drug court, allows nonviolent, drug-addicted offenders to avoid jail by
receiving treatment.
Nunnelly said it was a treatment program, but Tolbert said drug court was
law enforcement.
"I think it's very misleading that you (Tolbert) would take deferred
prosecution (drug court) and call it law enforcement," Nunnelly said.
Tolbert replied, "I don't want to quibble about programs. If these programs
are so worthwhile, let them take a higher priority at the county's annual
budgeting process."
Tolbert also said COMBAT was ineffective because drugs were as or more
plentiful now than before the tax's approval.
Sanders disagreed.
"Mr. Tolbert has no data to back that up," Sanders said. "If you look at the
hard data that law enforcement has, $300 million in narcotics have been
removed from the streets."
Sanders credited COMBAT with closing 7,200 drug houses, providing 4,300
treatment slots annually and reducing drug use among area teens.
Sumner criticized COMBAT's funding of Drug Abuse Resistance Education, or
DARE. The program uses police officers to teach schoolchildren about the
dangers of drugs.
Sumner cited national studies that said the program was ineffective at
preventing drug use.
"I don't believe we should have police officers training children about
these things," Sumner said. "We should have somebody with a social welfare
degree or maybe a reformed drug addict would be more effective."
Sanders said COMBAT allows officials to expand local DARE programs to make
them more effective.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...