Never think that just because a public policy leads to racial discrimination, expensive lawsuits against the city, and is eventually eased into death, someone won’t try to revive it as soon as the hubbub quiets down.

This week, the Old Town/Chinatown Neighborhood Association sent a letter to the mayor’s office calling for a reinstatement of the Drug Free Zone (DFZ). Until then-mayor Tom Potter let it expire in 2007, the DFZ was a policy allowing police officers to instantly exclude suspected drug dealers from downtown for 90 days. In acting as officer, judge, and jury, cops showed an unfortunate racial bias—the report that eventually killed the DFZ showed that officers excluded 58 percent of white people they arrested, but 100 percent of black people.

On February 1st, the Old Town/Chinatown Neighborhood Association voted to ask the mayor to look into reinstated the expired law. Here’s their letter:

Picture_4.png

I have a hard time believing Sam Adams would risk pissing off the ACLU and other civil rights leaders by reviving the DFZ, but it’s possible that a reworked form of the law could get some legs if business leaders push for it.

Sarah Shay Mirk reported on transportation, sex and gender issues, and politics at the Mercury from 2008-2013. They have gone on to make many things, including countless comics and several books.

4 replies on “Old Town Neighbors Want To Revive Drug Free Zone”

  1. I don’t know enough about Drug Free Zone to say it’s good or bad, but would Sam be more worried about pissing off the ACLU or other civil liberties group than he would be pissing off the voting citizens of Old Town?

  2. They are suggesting that it be in the hands of the courts, not the police, though. Would have that help prevent the racial bias we saw last time?

  4. I dont want any exclusion zones in my country. Its a slippery slope. Americans should not be excluded from any part of their country…for any reason. The thought of excluding people that have criminal records for drug convictions…unless we brand them with a “D” on their forhead, how will we know….excluding people with prostitution convictions…a “P” brand…??? I just think it gives business owners and others a “legal” means to harrass, unlawfully search and detain people and deprive them of their liberties to be free to travel unimpeded in my country.. Why do people think this is a good idea?

Comments are closed.