Connecticut's War on Drugs: a Peace Proposal
| Pages | 372 |
| Publication year | 2021 |
70 CBJ 372. Connecticut's War on Drugs: A peace Proposal
Following World War 1, the Prohibition Amendment was enacted into law. (fn1) in 1927, nine prominent American lawyers organized a group calling itself "The Voluntary Committee of Lawyers." Its purpose was to "preserve the spirit of the Constitution of the United States" by bringing about repeal of this Amendment. (fn2) Within a very few years the "Committee" grew to more than 3,000 members, including some of the most distinguished lawyers in the country. it presented a resolution for adoption at the 1932 Presidential Nominating Conventions, containing the following clause:
WHEREAS, the direct results of attempted enforcement have been to imperil the liberties of the people, to finance organized crime, to plunge politics in corruption, to clog the courts of Justice, to fill the prisons, and to subject important communities to a rule of conduct which they disapprove and strenuously resist, so that large sections of the electorate have come to regard the Federal Government as a hostile and alien power...(fn3)
It required only fourteen years (1919-1933) for the American people to realize how self-defeating and socially destructive the "war on alcohol" was. The Twenty-First Amendment repealed the Eighteenth; the country had passed a major sobriety test. There was widespread consensus that the adverse consequences of alcohol abuse were outweighed by those that arose from attempts to suppress it.
Less than half a century later, the United States has been drawn into a "war on drugs."
Not unlike the war on alcohol in the 'twenties, this war has spawned similar evils - a vast black market, racketeering, violence, and widespread crime. The parallel ends there. The war on drugs has produced far more profound and permanent social and economic destruction: widespread addiction, family destruction, rising crime levels, burgeoning rates of incarceration, court docket congestion and gridlock, even the spreading of the AIDS epidemic. (fn4)
As shown, prohibition ran its course in thirteen years. The Vietnam War was over in slightly more than a decade. But, like the rabbit in the battery commercials, the war on drugs just "goes on and on and on."
Fortunately, winds of change are beginning to appear throughout the country. Growing opposition to the drug war policies are no longer limited to the drug culture itself and the radical left. Skeptics and critics are increasingly found in bastions of the political center and the right - e.g., courthouses police departments, hospitals and drug treatment centers, editorial writers, a former Secretary of State (George Schultz), and two former United States Attorneys General (Nicholas Katzenbach and Elliot Richardson).
Several bar associations have appointed committees to investigate our current drug laws. In June 1994, the "Committee on Drugs and the Law" of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York" issued a report in which it concluded:
Beyond the continuing availability and consumption of drugs, the unintended consequences of our current prohibition policy are ubiquitous: Our courts, both state and federal, are jammed; our prison populations are burgeoning; urban and ghetto children as well as adults, are frequent victims of violent "turf wars;" our civil liberties are being eroded, along with our societys respect
374
for the law generally; our public health is threatened; the enjoyment of urban life has declined; and our nation's institutions, as well as those of our South and Central American neighbors, are undermined by the immense wealth accumulated illegally under the current prohibition policies .... [T]he costs of drug prohibition are simply too high and its benefits too dubious. (fn5)
Is the tide finally beginning to turn? In the elections of November 1996, two milestone referenda were passed. In California, Proposition 215 which permits the medical prescription of marijuana, while not earthshaking (certainly not for California!), was passed by referendum by a 12-point margin. In Arizonal an historically conservative state, an even broader referendum (Proposition 200), the "Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act," (fn6) was passed by a 2-to-I margin. Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration's response to the California and Arizona initiatives has been negative and, in language reminiscent of the presidential election debates, the White House reiterated its firm opposition to the "legalization of marijuana." (fn7)
A. Proposal for Reform in Connecticut
Connecticut, too, is showing important signs of moving out of lock-step With its sister states in the drug war. As a direct response to an initiative taken by the Co-Chairs of the General Assembly's judiciary Committee in April 1995, the Connecticut Law Revision Commission was asked to conduct a comprehensive study of our state's drug policy. The study was to be broad enough to enable the Commission to report on the "ramifications of our current drug policy and of alternative models" and to make
"recommendations for appropriate modification of the laws." (fn8) Five areas of study were specified
1. The effectiveness of current criminal penalties for the illegal sale and possession of controlled substances;
2. The effect that alteration of criminal penalties for illegal sale and possession would have on the incidence and treatment of substance abuse, the incidence of other crime, the overcrowding of correctional facilities, and the availability of resources within the law enforcement and criminal Justice systems;
3. The effectiveness of current substance abuse treatment and education programs;
4. The relationship between welfare and the illegal sale and possession of drugs; and
5. The outcomes of drug control programs in other states and countries ... and the effect that these programs have had on crime, welfare, and substance abuse. (fn9)
On September 25, 1996, a "Staff Report" was presented to the Drug Policy Study Committee of the Law Revision Commission. This 79-page document is the most searching and comprehensive examination ever undertaken of Connecticut's drug policies and programs. Its stated purpose is to consider ways of "improving the effectiveness of those policies in the public interest." The information and analysis presented offers not only the General Assembly, but the people of our state, major opportunities to move away from the bankruptcy of our past policies and in a positive direction so as to address the greatest...
To continue reading
Request your trial