Like the rest of inner city America, Bridgeport, Connecticut's 130th District has for decades been ground zero in the war on drugs. Mostly black and Latino, like other majority minority neighborhoods across the land, it has suffered the twin ravages of drug abuse and drug prohibition. Now, a former drug-fighting Navy officer turned drug reformer is seeking to change all that with a bold vision and an upstart bid for the state House of Representatives.

Sylvester Salcedo (2nd from right)

"Narcotics use and abuse is our problem here at home," he wrote at the time in a letter sent to Clinton. "The solutions should be applied here and not in Colombia or elsewhere. To spend this additional amount of money overseas is wasteful and counterproductive."

Fast forward eight years and little has changed. The war on drugs continues apace, drug arrests and drug war prisoners reach new highs every year. The violence associated with drug prohibition continues to plague cities like Bridgeport. And Salcedo has had enough.

"The war on drugs is one of our nation's longest wars, at home and abroad," he said as he announced his candidacy May 29. "It is senseless, wasteful and counterproductive. It is highly discriminatory on a racial and economic basis. I said so on the steps of the US Congress in Washington, DC flanked and supported by Minnesota Republican Congressman Jim Ramstad and California Republican Congressman Tom Campbell in the summer of 2000," he said.

"Eight years later, the conditions are the same, if not worse, especially for the isolated and abandoned residents of ethnic minority enclaves and neighborhoods like the 130th District," Salcedo continued. "I want to win this State Representative seat to be a leader of change. I want to lead the way to peace, understanding and cooperation, not through the politics of fear, and racial and ethnic discord and conflict. This senseless war on the poor and the voiceless must end."

Salcedo is not one for half-measures. He is proposing turning the 130th District into a sort of mini-Amsterdam, a zone of drug tolerance replete with safe injection sites, opiate maintenance facilities, and taxed and regulated marijuana sales. "I'm floating around this idea of the Covenant of the 130th District, which is to declare the district as a zone of tolerance," he said.

"I want to borrow from models like Amsterdam or Frankfort," he elaborated. "I'm not pushing legalization legislation, but acknowledging the fact that the 130th is a high drug trafficking and consumption area, from marijuana to heroin to cocaine. I want to try those approaches here. If you live in the district and are a heroin addict, we would work with you, whether it's a treatment and rehabilitation regime or a maintenance regime. If you select maintenance, you get the level of pharmaceutical grade heroin you need. In either case, you get medical, psychological, and social services, an intake exam, a social worker and a drug counselor to work with you. But this won't be a coercive or punitive program; instead it will be designed to develop the relationship with the addict."

Citing Bridgeport's chronically under-funded schools, libraries, and other services, Salcedo also called for regulated marijuana sales as a revenue raiser. "I want to open up a number of marijuana coffee shops in this district," he said. "They could be city sponsored, or they could be a joint private-public project. If people want to come here and imbibe, we will welcome them, let them pay the market price, and tax their purchases. The profits can go to the city general fund, or, if it's a joint venture, a share to the entrepreneurs," he said. "We will follow the experience of Amsterdam, with the police working collaboratively, so they're not arresting people coming from the coffee shops."

Salcedo's will undoubtedly be an uphill battle against the entrenched Bridgeport Democratic Party political establishment and to convince skeptical voters that more of the drug war same old same old is not the solution. But he has already passed the first hurdle by getting 290 district residents to sign his nominating petitions. Now he has to raise $5,000 by August to show he is a viable candidate and qualify for another $20,000 in primary funding from the state of Connecticut. At least 150 Bridgeport residents must donate to his campaign for him to qualify. (That doesn't mean people from outside Bridgeport or Connecticut cannot donate -- they can.)

He can do it, Salcedo said. "The primaries are eight weeks away, and nobody expected me to even get the required signatures, but I did. And I met every person who signed my nomination papers. I think I can meet this challenge, too."

He's going to need some help, from the drug reform community at large and from Connecticut activists in particular if he is to have a chance. One prominent Connecticut drug reformer, Efficacy founder and 2006 Green Party gubernatorial candidate Cliff Thornton is among the first to step up.

"I'll definitely be going down there and doing a few things for Sylvester," said Thornton. "I have to help the reformer."

One thing he will advise Salcedo to do is put his drug reform message in the background. "We'll try to sharpen his message," Thornton said. "He doesn't have to lead with drug policy. He's already known as the drug reformer, and he won't have to talk about it because people are going to ask him about it.

Another thing Salcedo can do is try to tie drug reform into other issues facing the community, Thornton said. "We're spending somewhere between $600 million and $800 million on prisons in Connecticut every year," he said. "If we took that and put it toward health care, we could take care of everyone in the state. That's the kind of connection we need to be drawing."

It would be a good thing if national drug reform organizations provided more than token support, Thornton said, looking back at his 2006 campaign. "When it came to actually supporting that run, everybody disappeared," he said. "The flagship organizations sent a few bucks here and there, but not enough to make a difference. And that's a shame. We are starting to elect good drug reform politicians, like Roger Goodman in Washington state and Chris Murphy here in Connecticut. Their opponents attack them as soft on drug policy, and they go up in the polls. We can elect people, if we support them," Thornton said.

Salcedo could use the help, he said. "Right now this is basically a one-man campaign, and I have a full-time job."

Still, he said, he may be able to pull off a surprise victory. "This is going to be a low turnout election, no other issues on the ballot here, and the only reason people are likely to go to the ballot box is to vote for me for change or because they're tied to one of the establishment candidates," he said. "In this district in this election, maybe 200 or 300 votes can win it. I'll be beating the bushes and talking face to face with people. I'll do everything I can, and then it's up to the voters.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

In a ruling that stunned and very pleasantly surprised advocates for Vancouver's Insite safe injection site, the British Columbia Supreme Court Tuesday held that Insite can stay open indefinitely. Canada's federal drug law is unconstitutional when applied to Insite because it conflicts with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and health matters that are a provincial responsibility, the court held.

InSite (courtesy Vancouver Coastal Health)

While the political fight was brewing, some actors sought recourse in the courts. Represented by Vancouver attorney John Conroy, the Portland Hotel Society, which operates Insite for BC Health, and the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU) filed suit in the provincial courts seeking protection for the site, and in particular, for workers at the site who might be at risk under the federal drug law. By imposing an absolute, unqualified prohibition on the possession of controlled substances, the law prevented access to Insite and its health services. That was an improper expansion of the federal government into what should be a provincial sphere, they argued. It was this lawsuit that brought Tuesday's victory.

In his ruling in PHS Community Services Society v. Attorney General of Canada, Justice Ian Pitfield declared part of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act unconstitutional and null and void, and gave Ottawa one year to rectify the law so it does not interfere with medical treatment. In the meantime, Pitsfield declared, Insite is constitutionally exempt from the drug law.

"In my opinion," Pitfield wrote, "section 4(1) of the CDSA, which applies to possession for every purpose without discrimination or differentiation in its effect, is arbitrary. In particular it prohibits the management of addiction and its associated risks at Insite. It treats all consumption of controlled substances, whether addictive or not, and whether by an addict or not, in the same manner. Instead of being rationally connected to a reasonable apprehension of harm, the blanket prohibition contributes to the very harm it seeks to prevent. It is inconsistent with the state's interest in fostering individual and community health, and preventing death and disease."

The drug law blocks addicts from receiving health care that could reduce their chances of overdose or death by infectious disease, and that violates their rights under the Charter, Pitsfield wrote. "While users do not use Insite to directly treat their addiction, they receive services and assistance at Insite which reduce the risk of overdose that is a feature of their illness, they avoid the risk of being infected or of infecting others by injection, and they gain access to counseling and consultation that may lead to abstinence and rehabilitation," he said. "All of this is health care."

He pointed out that people who drink alcohol or smoke tobacco to excess aren't denied treatment. "I do not see any rational or logical reason why the approach should be different when dealing with the addiction to narcotics," he wrote. "Simply stated, I cannot agree with Canada's submission that an addict must feed his addiction in an unsafe environment when a safe environment that may lead to rehabilitation is the alternative."

Advocates for Insite, who fought for years to create it, then again to keep it going in the face of the ideological opposition of the Conservatives, wavered between ecstasy and disbelief. "I just want to cry, I'm so ecstatic," Liz Evans, one of the directors of PHS, told the Vancouver Sun.

"This is a significant victory for the people in our community," said New Democratic Party provincial parliamentarian Jenny Kwan, in whose district Insite is located.

NDP Member of Parliament Libby Davies, who represents the district at the federal level, went on the offensive in Ottawa Wednesday. "Mr. Speaker, yesterday BC's Supreme Court decision makes it abundantly clear that Insite, the supervised injection facility in east Vancouver, is a health facility," she said during parliamentary questions. "The ruling also makes it clear that closing Insite would be 'inconsistent with the state's interest in fostering individual and community health and preventing death and disease.' Can the Minister of Health assure the House today that his Conservative government will abide by the court's decision and not appeal this important case?"

While Health Minister Tony Clement denied any responsibility for any decision on an appeal, he let it be known his government was not happy. "We are disappointed with the judgment," he responded. "We disagree with the judgment. We are, of course, examining our options and I would say to the House that we on this side of the House care about treating drug addicts who need our help. We care about preventing people, especially our young people, from becoming drug addicts in the first place. That is our way to reduce harm in our society and we are proud of taking that message to the people of Canada."

"If the Minister of Health claims that he cares about people who use drugs and the issues they face, then he will respect the decision of the court," Davies retorted. "The medical, scientific and now legal conclusions just could not be any clearer. Insite is a life-saving facility and harm reduction is an essential component of Canada's drug strategy. When will the minister put aside his personal ideological position, respect the court's decision and get to work on changing Canada's drug laws to allow access to health facilities such as Insite? When is he going to do that? He is taking too long."

Clement did not respond, except to say, "We are here to help our kids, prevent them from getting on drugs in the first place. We are here to help addicts."

If he wants to help addicts, Clement should quit opposing the safe injection site, said the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. "The court has recognized that criminalizing drugs and drug users cannot be allowed to deny people the benefits of a health facility such as Insite, and that to do so would violate the constitutional rights of some of those who are most vulnerable and in need of such health services," said Richard Elliott, the network's executive director.

"It's time to end the waffling and misdirection that we've seen so far," said Elliott. "The evidence is extensive and shows the benefits of such health facilities, including reducing injecting behavior that risks transmitting HIV and hepatitis C. Ideology cannot be allowed to block the delivery of health services and perpetuate a public health crisis."

Update: Late Thursday the government announced it would appeal the decision.