DRCNet
Interview:
Whitney
Taylor,
Executive
Director,
Drug
Policy
Forum
of
Massachusetts
12/10/04
At age 34, DPFMA head Whitney Taylor is already a tested veteran of the good fight. While still working on a public policy Masters degree at American University -- where one of her professors was Drug Policy Foundation (DPF) founder Arnold Trebach -- in 1991 Taylor began working with Marylanders for Drug Reform, where she helped defeat a "smoke a joint, lose your license" bill. She went on to a several year stint at DPF, where she did everything from coordinating conferences to running an international network of cities on drug policy to working major donors to editing the DPF newsletter. In 1999, Taylor headed west to become organizing director for the successful California Proposition 36 campaign, and then was, as she puts it, "traded to the Drug Policy Alliance," two years later to direct DPA's Prop. 36 watchdog project. Taylor came back east this year, taking the reins at the Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts (http://www.dpfma.org) in March. Drug War Chronicle caught up with Taylor to find out just what sort of drug policy reform is brewing these days in the Bay State. Drug War Chronicle: In the last three elections, non-binding questions asking whether voters in selected legislative districts favor medical marijuana, marijuana decriminalization, and in one case, taxation and regulation of marijuana, have won in every district where they have been on the ballot. Where is this effort going to lead? Whitney Taylor: These non-binding questions are basically the world's best poll. In 2000 and 2002, they were pretty much just to see how the public felt, and, as usual, the public was way ahead of the politicians. But this year, we really looked for the first time in an organized way at which legislative committees would handle such bills and who was really for or against us. So, this year we went to the districts of representatives and senators who blocked those bills in committee. We did a medical marijuana bill in Senate Health Care Committee chair Sen. Moore's district, because he was the one blocking movement on medical marijuana. We also targeted Sen. Thomas McGee, chair of the Criminal Justice Committee, as well as other representatives who sit on those committees. Also this year, I went to four different districts in October and did community forums with expert speakers from within the community. The point was not only to educate citizens but also to get the press interested so it would amplify that educational message. And that worked. We really got good press coverage; we got a series of editorials in the community papers basically telling the representatives to shut up and listen to the voters. This is part of a strategic plan this year. As in all nonprofits, our resources are limited, but I hired a wonderful lobbyist, Mary Ann Walsh, to push this on Beacon Hill. The way Massachusetts works, bills for the forthcoming two-year session had to be filed by this month, so I have already written the medical marijuana bill, it has sponsors, and it has been filed. It basically says a person with a written note from his doctor can use that note to avoid arrest and prosecution. If a patient has a condition the doctor thinks will be helped by medical marijuana, the doctor provides the note. If a police officer finds a person with marijuana and that person has a note, the officer can choose not to arrest him. If the cop isn't sure, he can arrest that person, but the note could be used to avoid charges. There is no state registry, no state oversight -- we have budget problems here, and we wanted to avoid anything that might cost the state money. We have good quantity limits: four ounces or 10 plants, and we allow for a caregiver to be appointed with the full protection of the law. I know Sen. Moore, the health committee chair, does not like medical marijuana despite voters in his district telling him they want it, so I wrote this bill so it would instead be sent to the criminal justice committee. Because a medical marijuana policy question passed in his district, Sen. McGee, the committee head, is now a lead sponsor. The session starts January 3, so we have a couple of weeks to get more cosponsors. We also will have a new speaker of the House, Salvatore DiMasi, who is a former criminal defense attorney and much more understanding and sympathetic toward drug policy reform than his predecessor, Thomas Finneran. Under Finneran, nothing moved. We never got any hearings or committee votes because the committee chairs did not want to get on his wrong side. There hasn't been a single drug policy reform bill that even made it out of committee since the 1990s. With DiMasi coming in, there is going to be a big change in the way the House works. He got elected on that whole "we're going to change things" deal. Chronicle: What about a pot decriminalization bill? Taylor: I wrote a dream decrim bill with help from others, especially Steve Epstein and John Holmes from MassCann (http://www.masscann.org). Sen. Charlie Shannon, an ex-cop, is our Senate sponsor, and we also have a sponsor in the House. While it could change in the process, the bill as written has a two-ounce limit with a $100 maximum fine. For people with more than two ounces, there is a provision allowing judges to charge it as a civil infraction if he decides there was no intent to distribute. There has been some disagreement among activists about the citation provision. If we want decriminalization, we need pot smokers to be responsible. People can request a court hearing if they wish, but if they don't show up or don't pay the fine, the bill provides that their drivers' licenses can be suspended. My past experience has taught me that legislators always want to know "where's the teeth"? My advice to someone caught under this bill is simple: Pay the $100. Chronicle: MassCann, the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition, a NORML affiliate, has been working for pot law reform in the state for years. Where does MassCann fit into all this? Taylor: DPFMA was created in 2001 by several MassCann members who wanted to try a broader approach, and we coordinated with MassCann on this marijuana stuff. These policy questions were more of a MassCann thing in 2000 and 2002, but this year, of the 12 questions on the ballot, MassCann put on three, while we put on nine. We make an effort to work with them, and in fact, we coordinated the questions campaign with them. There are conflicts and growing pains, but as the director of this organization, I know what my mission is. With the legislation, I was told as long as certain sections were in there, everyone would be happy. Well, I had to make certain decisions, and not everyone is happy. But that is my job. I'm always willing to be inclusive, but there comes a point when a decision has to be made. Chronicle: Your legislative package also includes a bill that would divert some drug offenders into treatment. What are you proposing and what are its prospects? Taylor: Massachusetts has a law allowing judges to send people to treatment at their discretion. I've rewritten that law as our diversion bill, and we'll try to sell it as a "fix it" bill. We already have a diversion law -- this bill would just fix it. What this new bill does is allow anyone who comes into court on certain defined charges to ask to be assessed for addiction and ask for treatment. This is not at the judge's discretion, and it's not judges having to quarrel with DAs. People don't have to go to treatment if they don't want to. Many people would probably prefer 30 days in jail and two years probation. Under this bill, they could do that if they wanted. Also, drug treatment has to be directly linked to someone being assessed as addicted. If someone is a recreational user and doesn't want a felony record, they can be assessed and sent not to treatment but to an educational class. And as I said, people can also choose just to take the conviction. I don't want to force people into treatment who don't want it, but I also want to give people a chance to avoid a felony conviction, and I want treatment available for those who want and need it. Chronicle: There is a significant chunk of the drug reform community that wants nothing to do with "treatment not jail" schemes, viewing them as perverting medicine or expanding the reach of state surveillance and control, or both. What do you say to people who hold such views? Taylor: Having worked through Proposition 36 in California, and then worked on its implementation, I've seen the folks who get in these programs, I've spoken to hundreds of them at graduations. These are not recreational users, but tired hardcore drug addicts who have no other access to services. Proposition 36 kept more than 30,000 people out of prison in the first year. I've had this discussion about incrementalism vs. absolutism with many reformers over the years, and I truly believe the positives outweigh the negatives. For the past six years, I've been working within the political process, and while I've seen how disgusting it is, I've decided to work within the system to get it changed. Here in Massachusetts, we are 18% people of color, but when you get into mandatory enhanced sentences for drug possession in a school zone, over 70% are people of color. If this bill helps one person avoid prison and get treatment, it's worth it. Chronicle: You've also been involved in some activism around needle access. What's up with that? Taylor: I'm also the director of the New England Prevention Alliance. NEPA is a direct service organization; we do illegal needle exchanges because Massachusetts is one of only two states that still has limited syringe access. With recent actions by Gov. Schwarzenegger in California and former Gov. McGreevey in New Jersey, that leaves only Massachusetts and Delaware. One of the most interesting things about NEPA is that I have monthly meetings with my staff to hear about what's happening on the street, so I really do have my finger on the pulse of who is in need of service. We have an epidemic of people in the southeast part of the state shooting crack, and because of the nature of the drug, they inject much more frequently than, say, injection heroin users. With NEPA, we did another action in response to World Aids day where folks from NEPA went out and distributed in four communities where needle exchanges are illegal, Brockton, Lowell, Lynn, and Worcester. The problem is that people in Massachusetts don't understand that the AIDS problem isn't just in Africa, it's right here on the street. We need to mind our own backyard. We have a lot of poor people of color addicted, and the rate of HIV infection traceable to dirty needles is outrageous. According to the state health department, 33% of AIDS cases are attributable to injection drug use. In Lowell, it's 46%; in Worcester, it's 59%. Chronicle: So is there any action on the legislative front on syringe access? Taylor: There is a needle exchange bill, but for DPFMA, that is in our second tier. We aren't the chief sponsor or main advocacy group, but we are helping our partners, like the AIDS Action Committee, which is working on it. The needle exchange bill was introduced at the request of Boston Mayor Thomas Menino. Under current law, local communities decide whether to have needle exchanges, and it's a difficult thing to get done. People just don't understand the morality of giving needles to drug users. But Boston did it, and Mayor Menino understands. The bill would basically allow people to buy syringes at the pharmacy, which means needle exchanges would be legal because you don't need a prescription to possess. Chronicle: What about organizing those communities? Taylor: We are trying to get something called Communities of Color off the ground. One of the big problems we have in drug policy reform is that we don't have an organized or vocal constituency to back us up when we ask for a change in policy. We hope to hire a coordinator for this; right now, I'm doing it myself, so it doesn't get enough attention. We want to do outreach to service providers in communities of color and tell them about legislation out there to increase services, to divert people into treatment. We could train them as well as their clients to be a voice for reform. As I said, the ultimate goal is to hire a coordinator for this, but we have funding problems. This person could organize training sessions -- how to speak, how to make the media work for you. Then, when we do try to do drug policy reform, when we have hearings, we will actually have voices from the community speaking for change. The state is not providing what is needed in terms of drug treatment services, and all these little nonprofit service providers can barely worry past tomorrow, but if we had a coordinator, we could coordinate those organizations so they can collectively go after the funding and get the bigger kinds of grants. Chronicle: It sounds like you're a pretty busy woman. Yet you're taking time out to help DRCNet and the Coalition for HEA Reform put on a fundraiser this week in Boston. Why is the Perry Fund worth your time? Taylor: The Perry Fund is so important! It's not only about the 34,000 kids who lost an opportunity to get financial aid and go to school this year, but this HEA anti-drug provision is one of those things that blurs the "us vs. them" line the drug warriors love to draw. You know, those drug users, they're the dregs of society. But when you look at kids going to school and losing financial aid, people think, "My kid probably smoked that stuff once or twice; I wouldn't want him to lose his aid over a joint." Everyone and anyone can understand this issue. I want the drug policy reform community in Massachusetts to know that DPFMA is about more than marijuana. There is a public policy community here that needs to know about the HEA and how it affects kids in our state.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
