THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE WAR ON DRUGS

READ IT and scream.

The story is about a man named Andrew Chambers. The Los Angeles Times and
St. Louis Post-Dispatch are among the newspapers that have written about
Chambers, who may become a symbol for everything that is wrong with the
"war on drugs."

For 16 years, Chambers was an informant for the Drug Enforcement
Administration. His snitching led to the arrests of more than 400 suspects
and the seizure of $6 million in assets. That's the good news. But the bad
news is very bad.

Chambers lied under oath on 16 different occasions. He was arrested 13
times on various charges -- including forgery and fraud -- while an
informant. DEA agents either bailed him out or finagled the "justice"
system into dropping the charges. DEA agents also knew of Chambers' perjury
and criminal record and hid it from prosecutors and defense lawyers. But
they continued shelling out the dough to him. In 16 years, Chambers made
$1.8 million.

Do the math. (Lord knows, Chambers probably couldn't. He dropped out of
high school). That comes to $112,500 annually for each of the 16 years
Chambers was dropping dimes on drug suspects across the country. Those of
you who work real jobs for 30, 40 or 50 grand a year and who graduated from
high school or college must be wondering where you went wrong, because you
got chumped -- we all got chumped -- by lunkhead government officials
running the "war on drugs."

And this is not a partisan issue. Liberals and conservatives have supported
the "war on drugs" and its primary strategy: Lock up enough black
inner-city drug dealers or addicts and we'll win the war. Employ as many
confidential informants as we can, even if, like Chambers, they prove to be
unreliable. (Rick Escobar, a lawyer quoted in one news story, said there
are hundreds of informants like Chambers running around.)

Stop cars on the highways and search them for drugs. Frisk passengers
returning from flights abroad for drugs. Kick in doors and terrorize
citizens based on the tips of these informants. If we find drugs, fine. If
not, it's no big deal. We're waging a war here.

Candidates, both Democratic and Republican, campaign on continuing and
winning the "war on drugs." But here's what they won't tell you: We're not
winning it, and it probably can't be won. We've supposedly had shortages of
a number of things over the years. There was an oil shortage. Drought in
the West caused a water shortage. California recently experienced a power
shortage. There's even been a shortage of the paper that makes up the
newspaper you're now reading.

But you haven't heard of a shortage of heroin or cocaine, have you? In
spite of all the arrests, all the interdiction, all the searches and the
doors kicked in and the trials and the snitching, there's still enough dope
in America for all its drug addicts to get happily high. We look at that
evidence and then nod sheepishly when politicians tell us we need not a
change, but more of the same.

So who's responsible for characters like Chambers? The DEA? The FBI and
IRS? (Chambers worked for them, too.) No. We are. We're the ones who pony
up tax dollars for the drug war. We're the ones funding this lunacy. We're
the ones not holding politicians accountable. When someone comes along,
like former Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke, and suggests decriminalizing
drugs and treating addiction like a health crisis, we haughtily thrust our
noses skyward and sniff, "We will never do that. It will send the wrong
message."

Perhaps it's time we consider what message we send by paying an Andrew
Chambers nearly $2 million to lie. Next to him, the drug addict who
candidly admits, "I just want a hit of heroin or crack," seems downright
refreshing. But we prefer the hypocrisy and perfidy of a Chambers to the
honesty of a drug addict. Maybe that's because we're all a bit hypocritical
in the messages we send.

Those drinking establishments that sell drinks at reduced prices in certain
time slots and call the event "the happy hour" promote the notion that
drinking makes you happy, and the more you drink, the happier you are.
Those television ads that tell the kiddies beer is something you can't do
without are priming us for our next generation of drug addicts.

Drug war advocates will protest that assertion, claiming it comes from one
of those nutty drug legalizers. Well, we drug legalizers may not know about
messages. But we do know what the No. 1 drug problem in this country is.
It's not heroin, and it's not cocaine or crack either.

It's alcohol, which is every bit the gateway drug that marijuana is. Any
true drug war has to teach our children that truth, and proponents of that
war must insist that "happy hours" and television alcohol ads have to go.
The booze industry will not suffer. Prohibition proved that Americans will
drink. They don't need happy hours or beer ads to encourage them.

What they need is an end to the "war on drugs" and fewer folks like Andrew
Chambers.