{"id":847,"date":"2013-06-10T13:06:32","date_gmt":"2013-06-10T17:06:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mysecuritysign.com\/blog\/?p=847"},"modified":"2024-06-05T06:29:18","modified_gmt":"2024-06-05T10:29:18","slug":"connecticut-shrink-drug-free-zone","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mysecuritysign.com/blog\/connecticut-shrink-drug-free-zone\/","title":{"rendered":"Connecticut’s war on drugs: New bill would shrink drug free zone"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Drug

View this sign here<\/a>.<\/p><\/div>\n

Drug free zones are a cause of conflict between Connecticut legislators. The current source of tension is a bill that would downsize the current area limit of a drug free zone.<\/p>\n

Democrats in Connecticut wanted drug free zones around schools to be reduced from the current radius of 1,500 feet\u00a0to a radius of 300 feet. They argued that the current law is unfair to city residents and\u00a0the zone\u00a0disproportionately affected minorities<\/a>.\u00a0Republicans, on the other hand, believed that this shrinkage would only bring drug dealers closer to children.<\/p>\n

Under Connecticut state law, those in possession of illegal drugs outside 1,500 feet of a school can be jailed for two years. This penalty is doubled for those in possession of illegal drugs inside the zone. Those who sell illegal drugs within the zone can be imprisoned for three years. This too is a stricter penalty than for the same activity occurring outside the zone.<\/p>\n

Conflict: Urban versus suburban<\/h2>\n

Urban legislators felt that the radius was too large. Rather than encompassing schools, the drug free zone covered entire neighborhoods and even whole sections of the city due to dense development.<\/p>\n

House members from cities pointed out<\/a>,\u00a0\u201cthere are few places in cities that aren\u2019t 1,500 feet from a school, daycare, or public housing complex, while most of the geography in Connecticut\u2019s suburban and rural towns doesn\u2019t fall into these restricted zones.\u201d<\/p>\n

Rep. Gary Holder Winfield, D-New Haven said, \u201cIn some of our cities, particularly our larger cities, those entire cities are areas where an enhanced penalty would be in effect. By doing that we have created places where there is no disparate treatment for dealing to or around young people.\u201d<\/p>\n

Rep. Jason Perillo, R-Shelton remarked, \u201cWe\u2019re identifying an issue in urban areas and applying it to 169 cities and towns. Who are we helping? We\u2019re helping that drug dealer who happens to sell his product 500 feet from a school.\u201d<\/p>\n

Amendment approved despite opposition<\/h2>\n

The amendment to reduce the zone to 300 ft was\u00a0approved<\/a>.\u00a0The final vote stood at 78-65.<\/p>\n

The bill has been withdrawn for the time being.<\/p>\n

The Hartford Courant reports<\/a>, \u201cConnecticut’s law is the most stringent among upper Northeastern states. Most others have a 1,000-foot radius, which is identical to the federal limit.<\/p>\n

Vermont and Rhode Island have less stringent limits, at 900 feet and 500 feet, respectively. Massachusetts had a 1,000-foot limit until last year, when lawmakers there dropped the radius to 300 feet in an effort to cut the state’s prison spending<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Like this topic? Check out our related products:<\/h3>\n