Piss in the cup, Governor
I know this sounds like some radical, right-wing, reactionary solution to a problem that doesn’t exist, but I think it’s time we implemented mandatory drug testing for state and city officials, chiefs of police, and county district attorneys. I had D.A.R.E. education in junior high and high school, and I learned to recognize the warning signs that someone has a drug problem.
Based on what I’ve seen and heard this past month, I believe a sizeable chunk of our government is stoned out of its mind.
It’s this new drug-free zone law that’s got me worried. [Read our special investigation here.]
In a nutshell, Maine now allows cities and towns to create special “drug-free safe zones” in and around parks, public trails and recreation facilities of all types (provided it’s a facility “frequented by minors;” there’ll be no zone, for example, around Platinum Plus). These zones are similar to the 1,000-foot drug-free zones around public schools, where anyone caught dealing drugs or possessing drugs “with intent to sell” them faces a longer prison sentence, higher fines and less pity from prosecutors than they would if busted outside the invisible zone.
Randy Hotham, a Republican state legislator from Dixfield (don’t they have a big pot fest up there every summer?), was at McDonald’s when he got the idea to supersize the school drug-free zones.
That’s a warning sign: Drugs impair your ability to think rationally.
What is the rationale behind all these drug-free zones?
The idea, as I understand it, has been that drug dealers will stay at least a football field-length away from schools because they know they’ll face a stiffer penalty if they deal drugs nearby.
This idea assumes street-level drug dealers are rational, remarkably forward-thinking individuals who weigh the potential legal consequences their actions may have five or ten years into the future, and then make the logical choice: it’s better to deal drugs at least 1,000 feet from schools at all times. These long-term legal considerations supposedly trump more immediate feelings and needs, like the gut-wrenching yearning for another hit, or the prospect of receiving a lot of cash for very little work – money that can buy more drugs.
This assumption is shaky, at best. At worst, it’s evidence that the state is willfully ignorant of the reality of addiction and the fact most street-level dealers of hard drugs in Maine are physically addicted to their product.
Addicts generally don’t have a lot of real estate options, so it’s hard to expect those who deal from home to move out of a zone or pass up a cheap apartment because of one. It’s also safe to say those who deal outdoors won’t make the effort to learn how to look up the state law posted on the signs so as to find out what footage the zones cover.
Then again, maybe the law is really intended to catch dope-dealing legislators? That would explain a lot.
The signs may be vague, but their sheer number — hundreds of them are proposed for Portland — will have an impact. A very negative one. Children from toddlerhood and up, and outdoor-types of all ages, will be constantly warned about drug crimes in every park, playground, trail and scenic spot they visit. So will tourists.
Of course, there are other rationales, too. Rep. Hotham and Cumberland County District Attorney Stephanie Anderson both assert that the very sight of drug dealing puts children at risk. “They may see that and they may consider that to be cool,” Hotham told me. “We want to send the message: it’s not cool; it’s not permissible.”
Of course, the words “cool” and “permissible” have been antonyms for at least the past half century, but nevermind semantics.
I submit that the sight of two hollowed-eyed junkies wearing overcoats in July and passing a baggie and a wad of cash between them is actually a powerful message that drugs are not cool. Scuzzball meth peddlers don’t seem as hip to the teenage mind as the rock and hip-hop stars, Hollywood actors, athletes and supermodels whose drug problems make big news almost every day.
If you really want to keep kids from thinking addiction’s cool, start by banningEntertainment Tonight. Then light the bonfires and ready the first load of rap and rock albums to be burned. But be sure to start with the books — they’re good kindling.
The D.A. also pointed out the high potential for violence that surrounds the drug trade. I’d point out that the potential for violence peaks when police and drug agents conduct commando-style raids on drug houses, not while the dealing is taking place. At least in Portland, thankfully, drug dealers try not to draw attention to their shadowy trade by doing things like discharging firearms in broad daylight. Drug dealing isn’t a safe occupation, but neither is policing.
It’s worth noting that a year or so ago, when cops and agents raided a drug house across the street from the Reiche Elementary School playground, they alerted school officials to keep the kids inside on the day they conducted the raid — not during the weeks or months beforehand when cops suspected drug activity at the apartment and began their investigation. (Guess those dealers didn’t read or heed the signs posted on every side of the school.)
Despite these flimsy reasons, maybe the school zone law has been effective in keeping dealers away from schools. A little research should prove this one way or the other.
Warning sign! Drugs make you lazy.
Turns out nobody did any research to find out if drug zones keep dealers away from schools.
It so happens there are studies that show the zones are utterly ineffective in this regard. And further research – some of it, granted, done after this law passed in Maine – shows that expanding the size and number of drug zones actually makes the original drug zones less of a deterrent. When huge areas of the city fall within the zones’ invisible boundaries, it’s impossible for anyone to tell whether they’re in one or not – and again, consciousness of the zones’ boundaries is crucial to the theory that they deter drug crime inside them.
There’s also the little matter of discrimination, whereby the state locks up city dwellers longer than suburbanites or rural folk who commit the same crime. That nasty side effect really shows up years later, but what junkie thinks that far ahead?
It seems the esteemed members of the Legislature’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee were too lazy to even ask for any data, any study, or any other empirical proof the zones actually work. Did anyone notice a towel stuffed under the Committee Room door?
And where were the enlightened, studious members of Portland’s legislative delegation when this bill passed – passing a fatty in the Senate parking lot?
I know it passed quickly, “under the gavel,” without a formal vote. But the Speaker of the House wielding that gavel was John Richardson (an attorney who’s represented Portland’s rank-and-file police union). Richardson’s a Democrat, just like most of Portland’s delegation and Gov. John Baldacci. None of these Donkey Partiers noticed Richardson was set to pass a Republican-sponsored bill titled “An Act to Protect Children Using Maine’s Athletic Fields and Parks from Drug Dealers”? That didn’t set off any alarms?
Warning sign: People on drugs seem easily distracted.
And what about our supposedly progressive Green legislator, John Eder? Eder didn’t return my call about this. Have his eyes seemed reddish to you lately?
Also ducking calls was Portland Police Chief Tim Burton. He’s supposedly a smart cop. Supporters of his bid to be chief liked to point out that he’s got a Bachelor’s Degree in Criminology from the University of Southern Maine, and a Master’s from Husson College, where he now teaches, as well.
When was the last time Burton submitted a pee-pee sample?
Portland’s top cop presents the City Council with a major new anti-drug initiative, a proposal to turn huge, oddly shaped sections of public and private property into “drug-free safe zones.” He fails to provide a shred of evidence to support the idea the zones enhance public safety.
Instead, councilors get a three-sentence paragraph announcing that drugs, drug use, and drug-related crime are all increasing in Portland (despite the existence of all the drug-free zones around schools). The exponential expansion of the drug-free zones is simply “another step in the police response to this public safety threat,” Burton concluded.
Is this what passes for scholarship in cop college, Chief? No wonder we’re losing the War on Drugs, badly. Our smartest cops couldn’t finish the Cliff Notes version of Miranda.
Look, either you’ve got stats and studies showing this is a good idea or you don’t. Don’t tell us your drug-sniffing dog ate them.
Here’s another good question for the Chief: Did you read the long list of places community police Lt. Anthony Ward thinks should be “drug-free safe zones”?
Did you see that the lieutenant recommends we post Fort Gorges, the abandoned Civil War-era military installation in the middle of Casco Bay, as a “drug-free safe zone”?
Warning sign! Some drugs can cause people to hallucinate.
I’ve gotta write this twice: Fort Frickin’ Gorges. I guess the police department will want a new kayak unit to patrol this historic drug corner. Call it Operation High Tide.
Ward’s list would be funny if it wasn’t so frightening. Think about it for a minute. What’s really at stake with this new law?
Bottom line: This law promises to put drug users and addicts behind bars for many more years than current law allows for their crimes. These are real people, most with miserable drug problems, entering a penal system already overcrowded and stressed by a steady stream of substance abusers. The system’s ability to deliver effective drug treatment to inmates is questionable. Equally questionable is the theory that stiffer prison sentences deter or reduce drug use and crime anywhere, whatsoever.
If we need to have a statewide discussion about drug-crime sentencing (and many lawmakers think we do), then let’s do that. Don’t just start dictating extra prison time, taking years of freedom away from people whose circumstances you neither understand nor care to consider.
Warning sign! People on drugs act thoughtlessly and often hurt others by their actions.
This law is a harmful fraud. It doesn’t protect children from anything.
For example, this law has nothing to do with dealers selling or giving drugs to minors. That’s a separate offense with its own increased penalties that cannot be tacked on to those incurred due to a drug-zone violation.
The new law does not cover possession or use of drugs in the zones. That means you can light up a crack pipe in the stands during a Little League game and face no increased penalties under this law. The D.A. and others bring up the threat of kids coming across drug paraphernalia in parks and playgrounds, but this new law does not apply to possession of needles and pipes.
The Portland City Council was expected to consider this law at tonight’s meeting. It got a unanimous endorsement from the council’s Public Safety Committee last month.
But it’s not on tonight’s agenda. At first I figured somebody just got baked and flaked it. But it turns out Public Safety Committee Chairman Will Gorham is postponing council consideration of the ordinance until he can figure out how the law actually works and what its consequences are for various types of offenses.
Gorham deserves credit for being perhaps the first public official in Maine to take a sober look at what this law does. But that doesn’t mean he or any other councilor will vote against the zones.
Politically, there’s a lot of peer pressure to pass stupid drug laws like this. The City Council should just say no. Maybe their good example will inspire other communities to reject this dopey law. And then state lawmakers can start cleaning up the mess they made last year by introducing legislation to rewrite or repeal it. Governor Baldacci can acknowledge his mistake and make this a campaign issue (somebody should, whether he does or not).
Either that, or take up my drug testing idea. Piss in the cup, Governor. It’s just a precaution, you understand — for the children’s sake.
— Chris Busby
Chris Busby is editor and publisher of The Bollard.
