Editor’s note: This commentary is by Rep. Thomas F. Koch, R/D, who represents Barre Town in the Vermont House of Representatives. This column is a reprint of his Jan. 11 “Scribblings,” an occasional newsletter from the Legislature.
One of the annual rituals marking the opening of the Legislature is a joint session of the House and Senate to receive the governor’s State of the State message.
This year Gov. Shumlin chose to discuss a single subject — the drug addiction crisis and drug-related crime facing Vermont. This approach is said to be unprecedented, although I think I recall that his second inaugural address last year also was limited to a single subject — education.
Unprecedented or not, the governor did not mince any words in describing the severity of the crisis:
In every corner of our state, heroin and opiate drug addiction threatens us. It threatens the safety that has always blessed our state. It is a crisis bubbling just beneath the surface that may be invisible to many, but is already highly visible to law enforcement, medical personnel, social service and addiction treatment providers, and too many Vermont families. It requires all of us to take action before the quality of life that we cherish so much is compromised.
The governor went on to make an equally important point — a point that lays the foundation for virtually everything that followed in his address:
“… we must bolster our current approach to addiction with more common sense. We must address it as a public health crisis, providing treatment and support, rather than simply doling out punishment, claiming victory, and moving on to our next conviction.”
That point is critical. It is easy to look at drug addiction as a bad habit and as drug addicts as bad people, or even as criminals. It is easy to say that addicts made their own trouble and should be responsible for their own bad choices. But that doesn’t do anything to solve the problem. It may be true that one’s addiction began as a result of a bad choice or two — or three. But once a person becomes addicted, it is no longer a matter of choice. Addiction drives an addict’s life, and all that person cares about is getting the next fix.
The cost of addiction is immense. During his speech, the governor introduced a number of people who have been involved in the drug scene in one way or another. One was an addict (now five years sober!) whose addiction was costing him $3,500 per week!! So where does a teenager get $3,500 each and every week? He steals it anywhere he can, from his neighbors, his “friends,” the public, and even his own family. And often an addict will also become a dealer, seeking to “earn” the money necessary to feed his own habit.
While the governor did allow that the proposals made in his speech were not an exclusive list, I was disappointed that he did not take the opportunity to endorse a bill now pending in both the House and the Senate that will regulate the trade in precious metals — gold, silver, platinum and palladium.
We can devote law enforcement resources to the problem, investigating burglaries, occasionally succeeding in arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating an addict. And then we find something that absolutely baffles me — it’s easier to get drugs in prison than it is on the street! So the addiction continues even during incarceration, and then when the convicted addict is finally released, he goes right back to the same old pattern. This is not a winning strategy.
Prosecuting addicts is not a winning strategy because it fails to recognize a basic truth: No matter how an addict got hooked, what he (or she) now has is a disease, and it must be treated as such. In a news conference following his speech, the governor spoke of being “educated” by people he consulted while preparing for his speech. I understand what he meant, because I got that same education about a dozen years ago when Sen. Jim Leddy and I co-chaired a summer study committee on drug abuse. It was a real eye-opener, which explains why I have been an advocate for addiction prevention, treatment and recovery ever since.
In the last dozen years, and partly as a result of the “Elephant in the Living Room” report that our study committee released, we have increased treatment capacity for drug abuse, instituted a prescription drug monitoring system, taken steps to prevent the use of common cold remedies for manufacturing methamphetamine, and extended state support to local recovery centers such as the Turning Point Center in Barre. And last year, the Legislature passed a wide ranging bill that improved the prescription drug monitoring system, adopted a computerized system (called “nPLEX”) for preventing the purchase of excessive amounts of cold medicine, authorized immunity for people who call 911 to assist an overdosed addict, and authorized the private possession and use of Narcan, an antidote for opiate overdoses. Yet there remains more to do.
The governor has made a number of specific proposals, which I can summarize briefly:
• Expansion of treatment capacity in order to reduce current waiting lists, with an immediate infusion of $200,000, plus additional funding for our statewide recovery centers and for services to be provided through the Reach Up program (sometimes still referred to as “welfare”) to Reach Up recipients.
• Increased efforts to divert people who are arrested from prosecution to treatment, with an additional $760,000 to be provided to state’s attorneys and courts to provide evidence-based assessments to determine who needs treatment and to provide for treatment and for monitors to follow one’s success or failure. Success in treatment could result in dismissal of charges or a decision not to bring charges; failure would result in continued prosecution.
• Addition of several tools for law enforcement, including tougher sentences for drug pushers for transporting drugs into the state, and enhanced penalties for possessing a weapon while engaged in the crime of burglary.
• Increased resources for drug education and prevention. Everything discussed above would be unnecessary if prevention were totally successful; unfortunately, it is not. But prevention and education remain our first line of defense against drug abuse, and we need to continue such support.
Among the prevention tools the governor specifically mentioned are funds from his office “to enable Bess O’Brien and those whose stories are featured in ‘The Hungry Heart’ to visit every high school in Vermont to talk to our students directly about their difficult journeys.” Bess O’Brien produced a powerful film called “The Hungry Heart” that details the agony that an addict feels while struggling with addiction. As long as I have been involved in the recovery movement, I still did not appreciate the depth of despair that addicts experience until I saw this movie, and the governor also acknowledges that the movie has been important is his commitment to this cause. If you have the opportunity to see “The Hungry Heart,” don’t miss it! It’s worth your time.
While the governor did allow that the proposals made in his speech were not an exclusive list, I was disappointed that he did not take the opportunity to endorse a bill now pending in both the House and the Senate that will regulate the trade in precious metals — gold, silver, platinum and palladium. As mentioned above, addicts steal to feed their habits. All too often, they break into houses and steal jewelry. Then they need to convert the jewelry into cash, so they take it to a purchaser of precious metals and sell it for whatever they can get, often getting only pennies on the dollar. Remember, they are desperate. Most frequently, the dealer will then ship it out of state, where it is melted down, and someone’s family heirloom is gone forever.
This summer, I was privileged to chair an interim study committee to determine whether, and if so how, to regulate the trade in precious metals. The other members of the committee were Sens. Baruth, Collins and Nitka and Reps. Consejo and Dickinson. The committee unanimously recommended that all precious metal dealers be required to be certified by the Secretary of State as eligible to engage in the business of a precious metal dealer; that specific record-keeping methods be required; that a dealer must hold any precious metal purchased by the dealer for at least 10 days before re-selling it; that the state police set up an internet communication system (most likely just a simple e-mail list) to notify all dealers and law enforcement departments in the state of recently stolen goods; that dealers be prohibited from purchasing precious metals from minors; and that serious penalties be imposed for violating these new requirements.
We were pleased that during our work on the study committee, several reputable dealers (and there are many reputable dealers who want no part of disposing of stolen goods) endorsed our efforts. We also heard of dealers who essentially have a “no questions asked” policy, and we hope that this bill will either cause them to change their policy or look for another line of work! In any event, this bill, if passed (and I believe the prospects are good), should have the effect of making it more difficult to dispose of stolen precious metals, thereby discouraging break-ins for the purpose of stealing precious metals. And while the governor did not specifically mention this bill in his speech or in the news conference following, I would be very surprised if it did not, in fact, have his support.
In short, the governor’s State of the State address was one that should receive widespread support. Some have asked where the money will come from in this tight budget year, and that is a legitimate question. I believe, however, that successful treatment will pay for itself — treatment costs much less than prosecution and incarceration. And the governor has also been criticized for dealing only with this one subject, as important as it is, and not mentioning all of the other issues facing the state. His answer is that he will deal with those issues in his budget address this coming week. We will look forward to that.
◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊
This week the House adopted a resolution commemorating the 50th anniversary of President Johnson’s speech announcing a War on Poverty. Although it was only a symbolic resolution and was predestined to pass on a voice vote, it had a triumphant flavor to it, and mine was one of the voices heard to vote NO.
Fifty years and $21 trillion after a declaration of war on poverty, it is appropriate to ask where we stand and what we have achieved.
When President Johnson declared war on poverty, the national poverty rate was 19 percent. In 2012, it was 15 percent. In Vermont, the official poverty rate in 2012 was somewhat better at 12 percent, although there are those who would argue that the real rate is somewhat greater.
In the early 1970s, the poverty rate trended downward to about 10 percent before rising again and then stagnating ever since in the 15 percent vicinity. So after 50 years of the War on Poverty, we have managed to reduce the poverty rate by about 4 percent — not exactly what I would call a record of success.
One cannot successfully argue that the War on Poverty has been a total failure and has done no good, but overall, it has become an industry unto itself, consisting of a collection of uncoordinated, overlapping bureaucratic programs functioning in their separate silos that have created generations of people who have become dependent on government programs.
People of all political stripes have agreed that the best anti-poverty program is a good job, but our record in that regard leaves much to be desired. In Vermont, we now have 4,000 fewer private sector jobs than we had in 2007, and job growth is painfully slow. Indeed, the greatest growth is in the low-paying service sector. While I recognize that we recently experienced a worldwide recession, we cannot ignore the role of Vermont’s high tax burden, excessive regulation, numerous small-business mandates, high electrical rates, and uncertain future of health care in our feeble recovery from recession.
We should use this 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty to improve our business climate, retool our poverty programs, and make sure that all of our programs are coordinated and calculated to make all of our citizens independent and self-sufficient. If we do that, we will find it much easier to eliminate the $70 million shadow that hovers over this legislative session, and we will indeed have something to celebrate.
