By Michael J. Marks

 

The recent placement of a sober home on Second Street has literally divided the neighborhood. Area residents say the home’s lack of regulation and management will lead to crime. Occupants of the home cry discrimination.

 

As the controversy rages, Medford residents are distracted from the real work of figuring out how citizens can preserve the safety of a community while exhibiting the compassion and social responsibility necessary to help the addicted heal. We need a solution now, for if a system is not put in place to standardize operation of such homes, we could be seeing far greater problems than we see now—litigation, bureaucratic wrangling, and yes, crime.

 

We need to step back and look at the situation reasonably.

 

First of all, we cannot waste our time arguing whether the homes should exist. They’re mandated and they’re here to stay.  They will not disappear, just as the problem of addiction will not disappear. Proposals to remove the homes would entail nothing short of circumventing the law, and even the most speedy and effective court reform will not help restore peace to Second Avenue this summer.

 

Secondly, residents’ fears about crime are valid. Linking drug abuse and alcoholism to crime is not unreasonable, especially given the widespread and highly documented use of such illegal addictive substances as heroin and marijuana. Medford is no different from the rest of the nation in its vulnerability to drug crime.

 

Thirdly, we must handle the debate honorably. This means refraining from name-calling and fear-mongering in favor of examining practical solutions we can enact now. No one is trying to judge or hurt the feelings of another person. As indicated in the Transcript’s June 21 story, “Neighbors Ask for Regulations, Not Revocation of Sober House,” residents cite past successful acclimation of healthcare-related group homes, such as those for the disabled. However, homes for the disabled differ in one great respect—they’re licensed and they’re regulated. Alcoholism and drug addiction are diseases that, like any other disability, must be treated medically.

 

Therefore, the solution is in licensing and regulation. Establishing a system of checks and balances would not only protect patients but establish protocols for care. For example, running a Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) check might reveal one’s background as a thief or sex offender. The presence of such a person, especially in a home where residents are treated medically, would compromise the safety of the patient and the public. Do not forget that when the CORI laws were placed on the books in the 1970s, the intention was twofold—to streamline the process of collecting criminal records but also to protect the rights of the person who was being investigated by preventing his or her information from falling into unauthorized hands.

 

As your city councilor, I will work toward creating licensing and regulation of sober homes. Do not forget: Alcoholism and drug addiction are diseases. As such, those who are fighting them must be perceived as patients and not criminal threats.