MORE DRUG WAR FOLLIES

To the editor:

Vin Suprynowicz's Sept. 2 column on the Donald Scott case is a prime
example of civil asset forfeiture abuse. The financial incentives created
by forfeiture laws create a very dangerous precedent. When protectors of
the peace become predators, society is put at risk. Would possession of
marijuana have justified the no-knock warrant that resulted in Mr. Scott's
death? Alcohol and tobacco are by far the two deadliest recreational drugs,
yet politicians do not make it their business to actively destroy the lives
of drinkers and smokers.

Shortly after Mr. Suprynowicz's column went to press, FBI agents gunned
down two men in Michigan following an armed stand-off arising from a civil
asset forfeiture case. Once again, marijuana charges were used to justify
the land grab. The drug war in America is in large part a war against
marijuana, by far the most popular illicit drug. In 1999 there were 704,812
arrests for marijuana, 620,541 for possession alone. For a drug that has
never been shown to cause an overdose death, the allocation of resources
used to enforce marijuana laws is outrageous. The U.S. government's
obsession with reefer madness threatens the integrity of a country founded
on the concept of limited government. America's cherished Bill of Rights is
increasingly irrelevant thanks to drug war exemptions. It's not possible to
wage a moralistic war against consensual vices unless privacy is completely
eliminated, along with the U.S. Constitution. America can either be a free
country or a "drug-free" country, but not both.

ROBERT SHARPE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

The writer is program officer for The Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy
Foundation (www.drugpolicy.org).