NEW ANTI-DRUG PLAN CONTINUES WAR ON RIGHTS

I t appears from the recent flurry of counterproductive legislative
proposals and blizzard of news reports that we have opened a new
front in the War on Drugs.

"Meth" (the street name for methamphetamine), we are told, is
uniquely dangerous. "The worst drug this nation has ever faced,"
hyperbolizes state Rep. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge.

First synthesized nearly a century ago, this powerful stimulant is
not what's new -- only its ascension to the long and storied list of
"worst drug ever."

What is interesting in the case of meth is that the University of
Michigan's annual survey of middle and high school students finds
that meth use among teens has been steadily decreasing since the
survey first started asking about it in 1999.

The fact is that only 1.8 percent to 2.5 percent of students say they
have used it in the past year -- far less than most other drugs and
substances surveyed.

America has gone through a long list of unparalleled drug threats.
First was marijuana. It has been followed by heroin, LSD, PCP or
"angel dust," cocaine, crack and now meth.

These threats never turn into the "epidemics" that officials fear or claim.

Now comes a package of bills from Jones and his colleagues to redress
the particular dangers of clandestine methamphetamine labs. They
include making the illicit manufacture of meth, in which minors may
come into contact with the dangerous chemicals involved, ipso facto
"child abuse."

The Michigan Department of Human Services would be empowered to
require medical evaluations in such circumstances without having the
inconvenience of obtaining either parental consent or a court order.

After nearly a century of drug wars, we have done far more damage to
our Bill of Rights than to the popularity of indulging in
mind-altering substances.

Enforcing prohibition laws has always been problematic because there
is no actual complaining witness to allege a provable harm in a court
of law. Since buyer and seller are necessarily engaged in a voluntary
transaction, no one is coming forward.

Consequently, ferreting out this proscribed commerce has compelled
the state to employ tactics that turn the most fundamental precept of
our legal system -- innocent until proven guilty -- on its head.

Our precious Bill of Rights has been put through a paper shredder.
General searches and random testing have become ubiquitous, the
nicety of showing probable cause passe.

The creation of "civil asset forfeiture" has cleverly side-stepped
constitutional protections by charging and seizing property allegedly
involved in a crime instead of citizens -- putting the burden of
proof on owners and reducing the standard for the state from "beyond
a reasonable doubt" to the much less rigorous "preponderance" of the evidence.

Americans, having grown accustomed to being presumed guilty, are
eager to prove their innocence at every check point.

If we would only give up the quixotic quest to protect the terminally
self-destructive from the consequences of their own vices, we could
restore our American heritage of limited government, privacy and
personal freedom to the rest of us.

Or at least shift focus to defending it against encroachments in the
name of the war on terror.