Drug bill veto was about politics, not health care
Paraphernalia decriminalization — a bill repealing the prohibition of items associated with drug use — passed in both houses of the Maryland General Assembly.
Knowing it wasn’t easy to win enough favorable votes, this triumph evoked pride in our legislative process. Thoroughly researched and well-presented, the persuasive facts carried the day.
My spirits soared — the greater good had prevailed! Until that is, Gov. Larry Hogan, despite the support of our legislators and the Maryland State Medical Society, vetoed the bill.
There are countries where drugs have been decriminalized and states such as Oregon that have followed suit, but Maryland’s bill didn’t refute the criminalization of drugs, it sought only to stop arrests for the possession of paraphernalia — a syringe, a pipe, or even such items as a straw or a lighter.
I believe we arrest too many people, and that consequences for those who do not violate the rights of others undermine vulnerable people’s capacity to take care of themselves. Just knowing that our country’s mass incarceration has grown to break world records, while our rates of addictions and overdose deaths have done the same, I am hardpressed to identify the value of so many arrests.
Therefore, it makes sense to eliminate those who are not in possession of a drug, but for whom we infer the intention to break the law.
A deeper dive into the more substantive issues reveals that current practices, beyond the long-term impact on employment, schooling, and other human rights, create a barrier to that which is most crucial — health care and the related services that have proven to make a difference in saving lives.
Syringe service programs, for example, are endorsed by the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association because the scientific consensus is irrefutable. They reduce by 50% the transmission of infectious diseases such as HIV, and program participants are five times more likely than non-participants to seek treatment. These programs are inexpensive and do not encourage drug use or crime.
The full realization of these benefits is dependent on people trusting that they can access these services without risking arrest. While syringe service programs are legal in Maryland, availability throughout the state is spotty, creating much confusion for everyone involved.
What we have is addiction experts throughout the land urging the bold expansion of syringe access and, at the same time, police arresting people for possession of a clean syringe.
In sum, we have a law that says syringe programs are legal, and another law — politically, not scientifically, motivated — that says you can be arrested and fined for possession of a clean syringe.
I was deeply saddened by Hogan’s veto, but I was shocked by his letter of explanation.
It’s not just that his reasons weren’t based on the facts, but he expressed no respect for those who worked so hard to study the complexities and the nuances of the issue, the culmination of which our governor called “dangerous.”
I understand it is his prerogative to veto legislation, but I don’t understand the demeaning attack on that which has met with so much success in countless jurisdictions.
It seems that we have two broad-brush philosophies in addressing our drug crisis. One sees drug use as a sin that must be wiped out by doubling down on prohibition and criminalization; the other believes that improving the quality of life for those who fall into addiction requires prioritizing health care and the humane services that have proven effective.
I have come to understand that you can’t be in both camps. The priorities and the strategies counter one another, leaving us stuck. If you have a stake in this issue, you simply must choose.
And, whatever you do, don’t pay lip service to one, but make decisions that support the other. If nothing else, honesty can prevail and is a practice that just might stick. Then we can have a healthy debate.