WEIGHING IN ON THE DRUG WAR

Contrary to what William Bennett suggests ["A Superb Choice for Drug Czar,"
op-ed, May 7], racial disparities in the nation's war on drugs do not
reflect racial differences in drug offending. Government data indicate
there are five times as many white drug users as black (which is not
surprising given the similar rates of drug use between whites and blacks
and the vastly greater number of whites in the population). Moreover, more
than twice as many whites as blacks have used crack cocaine and almost nine
times as many have used powder cocaine. All available data also suggest
that drug selling is not concentrated in one race: Indeed, studies suggest
most retail drug transactions are intra-racial, i.e., people tend to buy
drugs from someone of the same race.

Why then do blacks constitute 62.7 percent of all drug offenders admitted
to state prisons? And why are black men sent to state prison on drug
charges at 13.4 times the rate of white men? The racially disproportionate
nature of the war on drugs is not just devastating to black Americans. It
contradicts faith in the principles of justice and equal protection of the
laws that should be the bedrock of any constitutional democracy -- and it
undermines faith among all races in the fairness and efficacy of the
criminal justice system.

Jamie Fellner

The writer is an associate counsel at Human Rights Watch.

Joseph Califano wonders why the United States is not celebrating a 50
percent drop in drug use since 1980, saying, "If teen pregnancy, the
incidence of new AIDS cases, domestic violence or breast cancer had
plummeted 50 percent, corks would be popping across the nation in
celebration" ["Learning From Robert Downey Jr.," op-ed, May 8].

I, for one, do not think people would be celebrating a 50 percent drop in
teen pregnancies or AIDS cases if we achieved that number by criminalizing
teenage pregnancy or AIDS and throwing such offenders in jail. Not only
would this constitute an assault on our basic human rights, it would make
the problems we are trying to remedy that much harder. What teenage girl is
going to get prenatal care if she knows her condition is criminal? How many
people will get tested for AIDS if a positive result means jail time?

Califano's argument reflects the drug war hawks' belief that the only thing
that matters is the numbers. So what if the war on drugs has cost us
billions of dollars, weakened our constitutional rights, created more
hard-core addicts, made drugs cheaper, purer and more available and locked
millions of nonviolent offenders behind bars? The number of casual users is
down 50 percent in 20 years! Pass the champagne.

Sara Rose

In "The Delusional Drug War" [op-ed, May 4], William Raspberry endorsed the
drug legalization efforts of Ethan Nadelman and the Lindesmith Center.
Apparently, Raspberry and Nadelman would have us legalize, regulate and tax
the purchase and use of drugs such as cocaine, heroin and PCP, while
relying on public education efforts to persuade drug addicts to voluntarily
enter treatment programs.

As someone who has spent several years in the District prosecuting drug
crimes and a variety of other crimes that are often blamed on drugs -- from
brutal violence to all kinds of frauds and property crimes -- I have some
questions for Raspberry and Nadelman.

First: What do they think gets most people into drug treatment? Of the
thousands of street-corner drug cases prosecuted each year in D.C. Superior
Court, few defendants had ever sought drug treatment outside the context of
a criminal sentence. An arrest, and the authority of a criminal court
judge, are what get most people into treatment.

Second: Does Raspberry really believe that "much of the harm we attribute
to drugs . . . results not from the drugs themselves, but from our efforts
to prohibit drugs"? The muggings, robberies and home invasions by addicts
who need money for their next high and whose drug use renders them
unemployable? The sexual assaults by users whose conscience and
self-restraint disappear when they are high? The abuse and neglect of
children by drugged-out parents? Does Raspberry believe these harms would
go away in a legal, regulated market for cocaine, heroin and PCP?

Third: What makes Raspberry so confident that a government-regulated market
for such drugs as cocaine and heroin would eliminate competition from
violent, illegal drug crews? After all, the illegal crews would have the
huge cost advantages of not paying any business taxes or employee Social
Security taxes, and of not having to follow any labor, safety or quality
control laws.

Finally: Why would drug use and addiction -- and all their attendant harms
- -- not become more common when the stigma of illegality has been lifted and
the fear of being arrested is eliminated? Are parents and teachers likely
to find it easier to persuade teenagers not to try cocaine or heroin after
they are made legal?

Legalization would only make a tragic situation worse: an increase in the
number of drug users; a decrease in the number of addicts getting
treatment; a corresponding increase in violence and property crimes by drug
users; and the persistence of drug crews' turf wars. As former Supreme
Court justice Arthur Goldberg once warned in another context, "while the
Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a
suicide pact." That should be equally true of our efforts to fashion fair
and effective drug policies.

Henry Kopel