IT'S HIGH TIME

I write in response to "Drug of Choice" by Jamil Roberts (Mobtown Beat,
June 25). While I agree with most of the findings and recommendations of
Baltimore's 2003 Grand Jury Report, which suggests a two-prong economic
solution to the drug epidemic in Maryland, I think the citizens of
Baltimore would be confused without some clarification of the facts and a
formal call for officials to actually implement these recommendations.
First of all, the Grand Jury is suggesting (just as they have in past
years) that the demand side of drug abuse be reduced though a "continuum of
care" provided to existing addicts, while the supply side of drug sales be
reduced by removing drugs from the black market and providing them
medically to addicts (not legalization), effectively dropping the market
price of drugs and eliminating the majority of profit for criminal
organizations and drug dealers, while making treatment and recovery safer
and cheaper for addicts. These suggestions are all fine and good, and as an
economist they seem ideal, but this 2003 recommendation by the Grand Jury
is the same perfectly reasonable and logical solution for the city of
Baltimore that it was in 1995, when the grand jury made the same
recommendations, only without specifics.

The problem therefore seems to lie with the implementation of these ideas,
not the formulation of them, and politicians and elected officials seem
deathly afraid to take on drugs as an issue other than to crack down on crime.

I would like to clarify a few facts Mr. Roberts may have misread or
misinterpreted when writing this article. He stated that this year's 2003
Grand Jury Report is "a far cry from the finding of a 1995 Baltimore grand
jury report that advocated for the decriminalization of marijuana but found
that legalizing other illicit substances would be unacceptable." This is
wrong. In fact, the 1995 grand jury recommended the same thing that this
year's grand jury recommended--medicalization of illegal drugs--although in
1995 they were reluctant to recommend particular solutions. The only
differences in the 1995 recommendation and the findings this year are the
specific recommendations provided for reducing both the supply and demand
sides of the drug market. No grand jury in Maryland has ever recommended
the legalization of narcotic drugs, including this year's grand jury. Other
than the decriminalization of marijuana, only medicalization was
recommended for harder drugs. Legalization was never a suggestion.

All in all, drugs are a part of human culture and human existence, as they
always have been. To try and eliminate drugs and drug use is ridiculous,
and we as freedom-loving Americans need to stop revisiting these ideas that
don't work. Baltimore has spent billions on the "Believe" campaign, and
countless millions more on drug addicts and crimes directly or indirectly
related to the drug market. I think it's time we start believing in our own
ability to make this change, and stop merely suggesting one.

Jason Wertz Director, National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana
Laws of Maryland Baltimore