Editor’s Note: This week’s PoliceOne First Person essay is from PoliceOne Member Diane Goldstein is a 21-year veteran of law enforcement who retired as a Lieutenant from the Redondo Beach (Calif.) Police Department. Like Dean Crump last week, Goldstein wrote in to PoliceOne following our hot-button column on the debate over marijuana legalization. In PoliceOne “First Person” essays, our Members and Columnists candidly share their own unique view of the world. This is a platform from which individual officers can share their own personal insights on issues confronting cops today, as well as opinions, observations, and advice on living life behind the thin blue line. If you want to share your own perspective with other P1 Members, simply send us an email with your story.
By Lt. Diane Goldstein (ret.)
Redondo Beach (Calif.) Police Department
As a retired 21-plus-year veteran of law enforcement, I felt given the one-sided responses to this issue [Editor’s Note: in the comments area beneath this article] that other voices that support an appropriate regulatory model of marijuana legalization be heard. Your recent poll on marijuana is interesting but clearly reflects the typical law enforcement attitude in discussing alternatives to the war on drugs. You make assumptions that law enforcement officers that would agree with a proper regulatory model are “high.” So even with the limited 89 respondents at the time that I clicked you see that 35 percent say yes, with 11 percent saying possibly. My guess is if we actually had a rational discussion based on presenting alternative models, let’s say similar to the regulation of alcohol, that the 11 percent number would increase substantially
In 2011 the IACP came out in favor of collaborating with research institutions, both public and private to assist in the development of public policy based on sound scientific evidenced based practices. I share this with you because I ask the following question? Why in the area of drug policy, do we ignore research that is currently available as our leaders have come to recognize the effectiveness of developing smart policing practices?
The latest Gallup poll shows a record high of 50 percent of Americans in favor of legalizing marijuana use. This follows a consistent upward trend, picking up speed in 2006 when 36 percent of Americans favored marijuana legalization. Recently, governors from the state of Washington and Rhode Island recognized that continuing to Classify Marijuana as a Schedule 1 Drug no longer makes sense. They sent the attached report to the DEA. Here is a highlight in their summary.
“Upon review of the enclosed petition, we believe you will find that the mounting evidence refutes the 2006 review and shows that: (1) cannabis for medical purposes has a relatively low potential for abuse, especially in comparison with other Schedule II drugs; (2) the medical community has concluded that cannabis has accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; and (3) cannabis has accepted safety for use under medical supervision and pharmacy based access. It is now the DEA’s responsibility to make appropriate decisions and update the scheduling of drugs based on the changing scientific evidence and the opinion of the medical community. We submit that evidence herein.”
But our policymakers and law enforcement leaders at both the national and state level continue to reject alternative policies based on scientific research conducted by organizations such as RAND, SAMHSA, CATO and other national and international institutions. This despite the fact that RAND research in the 1990s demonstrated that drug treatment returns seven times the value to the tax payer for every dollar spent, that domestic enforcement costs four times more, and that treatment is 10 times more effective then interdiction, and 23 times more effective then source control.
Since the start of the drug war we have spent over a trillion dollars with no measurable gains. According to the Pew Center on States, (not known for its left-wing ideology), “Over the past two decades, spending on corrections has jumped from $11 billion to more the $50 Billion. It’s the second fastest growing state budget category behind Medicaid — and one out of every 100 adults is now behind bars. (Notably most non-violent offenders who cycle in and out of the system based on large part because of their drug use) The Pew Center further reflects in their 2010 Public Safety Performance report “But for all this spending, we are not getting an adequate return in terms of public safety.”
So when do we start recognizing that the economics’ of the enforcement of our marijuana and other drug laws are impacting our shrinking public safety budgets, and our prioritizing of serious criminal offenses. Is it when headlines such as this recently from Maricopa County hit our mainstream media? Or from the County of Los Angles in past years when the crime lab had a backlog of 5,635 sexual assault analysis kits, because they were too busy analyzing in-custody narcotics cases, primarily marijuana.
Arpaio allowed hundreds of sexual assault cases to go un-investigated, he may not have been the investigator but the culture of MCSO is sure determined top-down. As a former sex-crimes investigator I find this morally reprehensible. I wonder could there be a corollary with Arizona’s severe narcotics laws where possession of marijuana is still a felony and a leading arrest statistic? Where federal asset forfeiture money and narcotics investigations are more important than protecting children? This calls in questions the ethics and the competence f the Maricopa County Leadership that turned a blind eye to the pursuit of serious crime.
I believe we learn from historical mistakes in properly analyzing public policy. This allows us perspective to answer the questions of are we performing both efficiently and effectively, allowing us to rethink the status quo. In the early 1900s August Vollmer was the leading Chief of Police in California. He is now honored, and recognized by the IACP in their prestigious yearly Forensic Award for his vision in helping to professionalize law enforcement. Vollmer served as President for this prestigious organization, as well as serving on the Wickersham Commission that contributed to the end of prohibition.
In an address to the IACP he stated “drug addiction is not a police problem; it never has and never can be solved by policemen, but by scientific and competently trained medical experts whose sole objective will the reduction and possible eradication of this devastating appetite.” He further stated “that the enforcement of moralistic vice laws leads to police corruption and engenders disrespect both for the law and the agents of law enforcement.” No doubt we have reached the tipping point in both these cases. Corruption and disrespect for law enforcement abound, at a level that I never saw during my time in service from 1983 to 2004. Even within your own website you share what I term the wall of shame. The daily deluge of how this war on our communities has failed. When do we recognize it, and when do we as peace officer’s help to change a devastating policy from within?
Our founding fathers created a government based on freedom of choice, religion, liberty and personal responsibility. The rhetoric of a “drug-free” America is unachievable in a free society based on this vision. It is time for us to go back to our roots of law enforcement. We need to recognize that we were placed in the executive branch of the government for a particular reason. To fulfill our role as “Peace Officers’ in service to our communities, not to legislate law, not to influence public opinion through Unions, and Associations to retain the status quo, but to serve our communities justly and fairly, respecting those we serve by upholding the liberties enumerated in our constitution.
If you would like an alternative viewpoint and information about why Law Enforcement Against Prohibition believes that our current policy is a failure please visit our website at www.leap.cc.
About Diane Goldstein
Diane Goldstein is a 21-year veteran of law enforcement and retired as a Lieutenant from the Redondo Beach (Calif.) Police Department. During her career she worked and managed a variety of tactical and investigative units including the Department’s Gang Enforcement Team (GET), The Special Investigations Unit (SIU), South Bay Platoon and the Crisis Negotiations Team (CNT). In 1996, as a member of the GET, she and other officers received The Herman Goldstein Excellence in Problem Solving Team Award by the Police Executive Research Foundation for their work on reducing gang crime in the city. She additionally taught in-services courses at the South Bay Reserve Academy, testified in front of the California Council on Criminal Justice at the request of former Governor Pete Wilson, and is a recognized subject matter expert in the area of crisis negotiations and critical incident management. She was one of the original founders of the California Association of Hostage Negotiators receiving an Honorary Life Member Award in 2007, and is now a speaker for Law Enforcement against Prohibition.
