At least now we know what they’re smoking

[Note: It has been a very long time since I have posted to this blog. I have recently started a new, very busy job, and a whole host of excuses are at my disposal by way of explanation. But the growing drug and related crime situation in Rutland has gotten to the point that I felt it was time to get back to this column.]

Last Thursday I opened the Rutland Herald and had one of those ‘What are they thinking?’ reactions. You know what I mean; the slap-you-upside-the-head realization that either you or the rest of the world has gone mad. The ‘check the masthead to see if it’s April Fools Day because they can’t be serious’ reaction.

There, on the front page was an article about strong community reactions to the shootings, deaths and creeping drug-induced mayhem on the streets of Rutland. And just above that story is a report about the Vermont Senate’s tittering ‘debate’ and approval of a bill weakening penalties for small quantities of marijuana. The Rutland City story recounted the tragic events of last week which ended in a multiple shooting and homicide, allegedly over $20 worth of marijuana. This is the most recent of a series of shootings and drug busts in Rutland, invariably involving people from out-of-state urban areas.

With full knowledge of the crisis in Rutland, and with at least partial understanding that drug crimes are growing at an alarming rate across Vermont, the Vermont Senate voted 22-7 to play word-games with the penalty for possession of less than two ounces of marijuana for first or second offenders. While the sponsors of the legislation assured the senators that they were not decriminalizing the offense, their bill would give the offenders the choice of paying a fine or successfully completing the diversion program, which results in no criminal record.

The Herald story went on to report that a “. . . handful of jokes . . . scattered across the Senate floor that afternoon about pot,” but that a few senators failed to see the humor. A bill supporter, Sen. Richard McCormack, D-Windsor, was quoted as saying, “I’ve heard some audible snickering in the room today. . . and that’s probably because we know that our neighbors and friends are pot smokers. And this hypocrisy weakens the laws and dignity of the state.”

The ultimate challenge to ‘hypocrisy’ may have come when another bill supporter, Sen. Richard Sears, D-Bennington, read a statement from Windsor County prosecutor Robert Sand, which read in part, “The only people sending the wrong message are the ones suggesting that changing the offenses amounts to condoning its use.”

You may recall prosecutor Sand for his decision late last year to drop felony possession charges against attorney Martha Davis, who also served as a part-time judge, and give Davis the opportunity to attend diversion and avoid a criminal record. Reports indicated that Davis was busted for possessing several pounds of marijuana and growing it in her home. Sand has been so outspoken in his call for decriminalization that Governor Jim Douglas briefly ordered all felony possession cases in Windsor County be automatically referred to the Attorney General.

So here is my question: Why are out of state drug dealers suddenly setting up shop in Rutland and all across Vermont in record numbers? Is it the ‘hypocrisy’ of having drug laws on the books that some of Vermont’s elite citizens view as droll anachronisms?

No. That’s not it. The reason they are here is because Vermont has lax drug laws and flaccid prosecution. They are coming because national stories like the Martha Davis/Robert Sand fiasco broadcast to every drug dealing parasite from Chicago to Miami to the South Bronx that Vermont was a great place to open their next franchise. And now that 22 members of the Vermont Senate have affirmed the message, the gold rush is sure to gather steam.

Rutlanders are scared. They are afraid that they are slowly losing what has always been a safe and caring community to the scourge of the inner city. They are afraid that the next bullet will miss its intended target and hit a ten year old walking home from school.

And if that happens there will be a march on Montpelier. It will be interesting to hear what the Senators will say then.

[NOTE: The situation in Rutland is serious and it is reassuring to read reports that community members are seeing it as such. This is not the first time Rutland has successfully faced such a challenge and I have no doubt that we can do so again. For my next commentary I intend to share the lessons learned from our experience with the Los Solidos gang in the 1990’s.]