|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 Vetoed Bills and Messages
|
|
|
|
|
|
H.B. 992
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After careful consideration, it is my conclusion that signing this bill into law is both
unnecessary and contrary to the interests of public safety for the following reasons:
1. Despite the bill's applicability to "non-violent" criminals, drug dealers participate in
an activity that fuels violent crime and murder.
2. Maryland law already affords two-time offenders an opportunity to receive drug
treatment services in lieu of a mandatory sentence.
3. The bill seeks to aid addicted individuals, but does not require individuals to receive
drug treatment services or make progress in addressing the public health and public
safety issue of drug addiction.
Much has been said and written about this bill and, as discussed below, I share most
of the policy goals of those who support this bill. However, it is difficult for me, and
many Marylanders, to lose sight of the fact that this bill potentially reduces the
sentence of individuals who have been twice convicted of distributing drugs in our
communities.1
The drug trade is an inherently violent business. While an individual drug-dealing
transaction, or an individual drug production operation, may not experience an
incident of violence, the illegal drug market as a whole is shaped and protected
through a culture of violence. We know all too well that somewhere along the chain of
drug production and distribution lives are lost, families are devastated, and
communities are destroyed.
Further, Maryland law has long allowed a second-time offender to ask to receive
treatment services for a drug addiction through the Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene. Sections 5-608(b)(4) and 5-609(b)(4) of the Criminal Law Article, which are
amended by House Bill 992, clearly state that a person convicted of the crime in
question "is not prohibited from participating in a drug treatment program under
Section 8-507 of the Health-General Article because of the length of the sentence."2
In 1993, the Maryland Court of Appeals addressed the issue of "whether a defendant,
who is committed to a drug treatment center pursuant to [Section 8-507] and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 While the bill aims to aid addicts convicted of these crimes, it is well accepted that not all drug
manufacturers and dealers are addicted to, or even use, the product that they produce and peddle. Yet
the bill affords non-addicted street entrepreneurs the same opportunity to make a case to avoid the
mandatory minimum sentence as those individuals who may in fact be addicted to and dealing drugs.
2 Section 8-507 provides that "a court that finds in a criminal case that a defendant has an alcohol or
drug dependency may commit the defendant as a condition of release, after conviction, or at any other
time the defendant voluntarily agrees to participate in treatment," to DHMH for appropriate treatment.
This commitment can last for any period of time between 72 hours and 1 year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 4804 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
