TWO MORE MYTHS OF THE DRUG WAR

"We cannot go into tomorrow with the same formulas that are failing today.
We must not blindly add to the body count and the terrible cost of the drug
war, only to learn from another Robert McNamara 30 years from now that what
we've been doing is "wrong, terribly wrong." ­ Walter Cronkite

As stated in my commentary of March 9, there are many myths about the drug
war. Myths 1 and 2 were discussed there. Here are two more:

Drug War Myth 3: The drug war can be won if only we stay the course a bit
longer.

But that course, eliminating the supply and punishing the offenders ­ while
paying only lip service to reducing demand ­ was doomed to failure from the
beginning.

The fatal flaw: The more successful the supply reduction efforts the worse
the drug problem becomes. The drug trade exists only because it is
profitable; reducing the supply without lowering demand raises the prices,
profitability and incentives for production and trafficking.

When US political and financial pressure decimated Peru's coca crops and
cocaine production, the operations simply moved to Colombia. Now we are
about to become involved in another Vietnam-like war there, purportedly to
help the Colombian government defeat the insurgents who are financing their
revolutionary efforts through cocaine production. But if production in
Colombia is stopped, new sources will spring up elsewhere.

Closer to home, major (and well publicized) drug busts at or within our
borders often result in mass arrests and confiscation of large amounts of
illicit drugs. Sometimes these hamper the drug trade a bit. But their very
success makes the problem worse; without a reduction in demand prices and
profits rise, as do the incentives to find new sources of supply, new holes
in our 20,000 miles of porous border, to enter into the trafficking
business, new places to hide the stuff, new ways to outwit the law
enforcers. Soon the trade is as brisk as ever.

And even if all foreign drugs could somehow be eliminated or kept out of
the country, there are more than enough domestic materials from which to
manufacture mind-altering drugs. The stealing of OxyContin to replace
heroin is one example (Times Record, Feb. 23). The raw materials will
always be available ­ paint, glue, wood alcohol, prescription and
over-the-counter medicines, fossil fuels, methane, have all been used ­ and
human ingenuity will always find ways to formulate mind-altering substances
from available materials.

Locking up the users should work, theoretically; after all, they can't use
drugs in prison. Or can they? Any prisoner will tell you that drugs are as
available in prisons as outside. And with substance abuse treatment
programs in prisons cut to the bone, most prisoners come out even more
addicted to alcohol or other drugs than when they went in. But even if
effective, it is only an extreme demand reduction method.

Executing all users (not sellers) would be an even more extreme method, but
guaranteed effective.

Drug War Myth 4: The choice is between total prohibition and total
legalization.

This is the Big Lie technique, actually, rather than a myth. A very
effective lie too. It has stifled debate over the options between those two
extremes by labeling drug war opponents as either scoundrels wanting to
profit from legalization or naive fools who do not appreciate the menace of
drugs.

But very few people are urging outright legalization. We drug war opponents
realize the horrors and dangers of drugs fully as much as the drug
warriors. We realize something else also: The drug war is not only causing
far more harm than any amount of drugs could ever do, it also is making the
drug problem itself greater than it need be.

Even the staunchest drug warriors now grudgingly concede that their
approach is not working. Yet other countries have had drug problems as bad
as ours, but nearly all have made significant improvements, at far less
financial and social costs. Why is this?

The two countries with the greatest success in handling their drug
problems, Holland and Switzerland, happen to have some of the most liberal
drug laws. Unlike our impossible goal of a "drug free society," to be
achieved primarily through source control and offender punishment, these
countries (and most others) began from the pragmatic position that drugs
have always been and will always be a problem. So they attempt to reduce
their harm as much as feasible while not creating even worse problems in
the process.

They treat drug use and addiction as a medical problem rather than a
criminal one. Effective counseling and treatment are provided to users,
including ­ where necessary ­ providing maintenance doses to addicts so
they can remain them functioning and productive. This removes their
dependency on illegal drug dealers, and the need for criminal acts to
obtain the money for their fixes.

But even Holland and Switzerland have not legalized hard drugs, nor do they
intend to. (Holland legalizes marijuana smoking in licensed coffee shops;
otherwise smoking it or possessing small amounts is a minor misdemeanor in
both countries.) And in some ways their law enforcement efforts are
stronger ­ and more effective ­ than ours. They go after the drug
traffickers, but unlike this country do not offer them sweetheart deals if
they snitch on their customers. Drug trafficking there is far riskier and
far less lucrative.

Will such methods work here? Perhaps. Perhaps we will need something
different. But before we can even begin to seriously debate the options, we
must overcome the immense political and financial constituency that is
fueling the drug war: the prison-industrial complex. It is our largest
growth industry, costing more than $200 billion annually when everything is
figured in, and the source of immense political power.

That constituency will not relinquish its profits and power willingly.

"In Texas, a group of children left their chairs in Sunday School, got down
on their knees and clasped their hands and prayed. They prayed that a new
prison would open in their neighborhood. They prayed fervently so that
their under-educated parents could earn $10,000 more dollars a year than a
tenured teacher and so that their community could prosper… I remember a
time when praying for prisoners had an entirely different meaning than it
does today." -- Nora Callahan, executive director, The November Coalition
(a group fighting the drug war on behalf of its prisoners).

Prisons have always been a necessary evil. Now they are an evil necessity.

On the Net:

http://www.november.org/walcron.html

http://www.november.org/NewsJulAug99.html

http://www.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/13/dutch_drugs/index.html