Cannabis News NORML - It's Time for a Change!
  Drug-Free Zones Questioned
Posted by FoM on July 19, 2001 at 09:00:47 PT
By Anand Vaishnav, Globe Staff 
Source: Boston Globe 

justice Drug-free zones that ring Massachusetts schools have not stopped drug dealers from peddling near campus, although in most instances classes weren't in session, according to a study released yesterday by the Boston University School of Public Health.

Enacted in 1989 to help combat a crack-cocaine epidemic, the state's drug-free-zone law punishes dealing within 1,000 feet of a school with a mandatory two-year jail sentence. But, researchers found, the law went largely unheeded: 80 percent of drug-dealing cases occurred in a school or park zone, said William N. Brownsberger, the study's lead author.

The findings punch holes in one of the most visible instruments of school safety.

''The school environment is not safer than other areas,'' said Brownsberger, a senior criminal justice adviser with Join Together, an antidrug project at BU's School of Public Health. ''We are not successful in moving dealers away from schools.''

But some disagree, including Hampden District Attorney William M. Bennett, one of two district attorneys who let Brownsberger access their case data. Bennett pointed to another finding in the report - that 71 percent of the drug deals in a school zone occur when students aren't around - saying it shows that the law has done its job. And just four of the incidents involved selling drugs to minors, the study said.

''Hardly any cases arise while schools are in session,'' said Bennett, who agreed that the law could be tightened. ''That's because of the law.''

Researchers studied 443 drug cases in Fall River, New Bedford, and Springfield for the fiscal year 1999. The counties in which they were located, Bristol and Hampden, have relative high poverty rates, according to the report.

Using court and police records - as well as aerial photography and global-positioning satellite equipment - the researchers mapped both school zones and pinpointed where the drug deals occurred. Generally, drug-dealing was concentrated in school zones, partly because many pushers live near schools, the report said.

But ''in no cases did we have the classic picture of the pusher standing on the corner offering fifth-graders their first introduction to drugs,'' Brownsberger said. ''This law is not hitting the stereotype it was intended to hit.''

While setting a drug-free boundary of 1,000 feet from a school sounds tough, in practice, it led to irregularly shaped zones that bumped into each other so that offenders probably didn't even know that they're standing in them, Brownsberger said. He recommended cutting the zone to 100 feet but boosting the automatic penalty from two years' incarceration to five.

Some law-enforcement officials believe the shrinking of the zone would send the wrong message, but others say it would push more dealers away from schools than the current law.

''So much of the area of where people buy and sell drugs is covered by the school prohibition that there's no incentive left to do your dealing in a place that doesn't threaten students,'' said Philip B. Heymann, a Harvard Law School professor and former president Bill Clinton's first deputy attorney general.

Brownsberger also found that charges against drug offenders were often reduced - and in some cases, they weren't charged with dealing in a school zone at all. Heroin and cocaine dealers were more likely to be charged than marijuana dealers, although all illegal drugs are covered.

James Borghesani, spokesman for Suffolk District Attorney Ralph C. Martin II, said Martin and other district attorneys are ''right now studying how best to narrow the distance of drug-free zones in order for the law to meet its intended purpose.''

Jack Calhoun, head of the National Crime Prevention Council and former commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services, agreed that the law could be improved for densely packed areas such as Boston, where zones overlap. But he cautioned against large-scale changes.

''You don't want to jettison the stuff,'' Calhoun said. ''Whether it's 1,000 square feet or 500 square feet ... it's the community making a statement about, `Hey, we're not going to tolerate this stuff in an area where children are.'''

This story ran on page B4 of the Boston Globe on 7/19/2001.

Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Author: Anand Vaishnav, Globe Staff
Published: July 19, 2001
Copyright: 2001 Globe Newspaper Company
Contact: letter@globe.com
Website: http://www.boston.com/globe/

CannabisNews Justice Archives
http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/justice.shtml


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #6 posted by Jose Melendez on July 20, 2001 at 06:00:16 PT:

the new lemonade stand
"Perhaps the reason the law is not hitting the stereotype is because the stereotype is wrong. This doesn't seem to occur to the police (big surprise); (drug) dealers don't hang out by school yards trying to lure innocent fifth graders into becoming dope fiends.
"


Right on, Doug. Reminds me of when Newt Gingrich got up on his soapbox, recommending execution for "anyone who sold drugs to our kids."


Except, the best pot comes from kids - they have more free time and less risk involved in growing it, with the right techniques and breeding, it is worth more than gold...


Best of all, they can trade the stuff for what they really want, BEER and CIGARETTES!


The War on Drugs has made a positive economic impact on kids - and drugs are the new lemonade in their stands.


Now they sell and trade Ritalin pills to be crushed and snorted like cocaine, and mom's Valiums or OxyContin are just the ticket that will yield the cash they need for important stuff, like concert tickets and... more beer and cigarettes.


Someone once posted (I think it was here at cannabisnews.com, not sure) that the reason pot remains illegal is that there would be a large economic decline due to the loss of underground cashflow...


Are there any studies on that?


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #5 posted by sm247 on July 20, 2001 at 05:38:38 PT
Can we get a repeal??
I always thought this law was totally stupid. It targets people living within a 1000 ft of schools who actually have nothing to do with the kids going to school. I can understand increased penalties when it comes to the school grounds itself but of course the only people that would effect is the kids themselves. You just don't have adults hangin around school houses sellin drugs this law should be modified or better yet repealed completely.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #4 posted by Doug on July 19, 2001 at 17:42:08 PT
Stereotypes
But ''in no cases did we have the classic picture of the pusher standing on the corner offering fifth-graders their first introduction to drugs,'' Brownsberger said. ''This law is not hitting the stereotype it was intended to hit.''

Many people have picked up on this line, and I'd like to add one more comment. Perhaps the reason the law is not hitting the stereotype is because the stereotype is wrong. This doesn't seem to occur to the police (big surprise); durg dealers don't hang out by school yards trying to lure innocent fifth graders into becoming dope fiends.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #3 posted by Kevin Hebert on July 19, 2001 at 10:37:19 PT:

My response to the Boston Globe
Dear Editors:

Anand Vaishnav's "Drug-Free Zones Questioned" shows that the drug-free school zones law has not stopped the illicit sale of drugs.

This should come as no surprise. Making drugs illegal only makes them more profitable. Drug prohibition has created a lucrative market for drug dealers.

If you really want to keep drugs from children, then they must be legalized and regulated. Drug dealers don't card your children for drugs. By making them illegal, we are all but handing the drugs directly to our children.

When will we end the tired, failed policy of drug prohibition, and use the resources to fight real crimes -- like murder, robbery, arson, and assault? These are the crimes that truly affect people's lives -- not a
responsible adult choosing to use intoxicating substances in the privacy of his or her own home.

Sincerely,
Kevin M. Hebert


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #2 posted by fivepounder on July 19, 2001 at 10:21:02 PT
Stupid circular reasoning
Kaptinemo, you got that right. I could not have said it better myself.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on July 19, 2001 at 09:16:58 PT:

It is a tale told by an idiot
full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"

Old Will Shakespeare was talking about life in general, but this latest from the anti camp is really worth the same description:

"''The school environment is not safer than other areas,'' said Brownsberger, a senior criminal justice adviser with Join Together, an antidrug project at BU's School of Public Health. ''We are not successful in moving dealers away from schools.''

and:

"But ''in no cases did we have the classic picture of the pusher standing on the corner offering fifth-graders their first introduction to drugs,'' Brownsberger said. ''This law is not hitting the stereotype it was intended to hit.''

So, it doesn't work. It's counterproductive. It is a real laughingstock of a law.

But the antis don't want to give it up:

"''You don't want to jettison the stuff,'' Calhoun said. ''Whether it's 1,000 square feet or 500 square feet ... it's the community making a statement about, `Hey, we're not going to tolerate this stuff in an area where children are.'''

Empty, useless gestures. Stupidly inappropriate responses, when much more sensible ones are available. Pointless exertions. Circular reasoning. Semantically null statements. Is it any wonder the rest of the world is turning its' back on the US styled DrugWar when its' representatives spout off like this?

The DrugWar is indeed the 'tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'.... but advertising the stupidity of it's proponents.



[ Post Comment ]


  Post Comment
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on July 19, 2001 at 09:00:47