ATTACK AGAINST THE DRUG WAR IGNORES SOCIAL COSTS

In his Jan. 8 column, former Superior Court Judge Martin Haines attacked
the so-called "war on drugs." It is hard to figure out whether his
philosophy is leftist, libertarian or simply nonsensical. His ignorance of
the facts and his lack of logic is so evident one might believe that he was
a paid lobbyist for the Drug Policy Alliance, the goal of which is to
legalize all drugs.

Haines begins his diatribe quoting statistics for drug arrests and the
numbers of people in state and federal jails and prisons (a common ploy of
the Drug Policy Alliance), but never cites the number of drug overdose
hospitalizations, deaths or murders -- figures which are of more interest
to the families affected by drug abuse -- or even the enormous costs to
society when these drug users and dealers are out on the street.

He then cites financial figures for the costs of fighting the "war" on drug
and alcohol abuse. He neglects, however, to recite that it costs the
taxpayers of this country about $143 billion annually in preventable health
care costs, absenteeism, premature deaths, increased insurance and health
care costs, accidents, crime and lost productivity. Alcohol and drug
abusers are late for work three times more often than fellow employees;
have absences of eight days or longer 2.5 times more often than other
employees; are five times more likely to file a worker's compensation claim
and are 3.6 times more likely to cause a workplace accident.

Haines then accuses "our governments" of misleading the public about the
dangers of drug abuse so that we can have "harsh criminal laws, tough
prosecutions and stiff penalties." He wants judges to have more discretion
in sentencing, and to reduce penalties for marijuana, as it is "mostly
harmless." He also boldly states that marijuana has beneficial medical uses.

The pro-legalization rhetoric about the government wanting harsher laws,
tougher prosecutions and stiffer penalties is not backed up by any
statements or reasoning because it's pure nonsense. As to the reason for
mandatory minimum sentences, it was brought about by judges who failed to
fulfill the duties of the job to which they were appointed or elected.
There was a twofold reason for their introduction:

(The public was fed up with criminals not going to jail. Former Sen. Phil
Gramm, R-Texas, once noted that "mandatory minimum sentencing is a massive
no-confidence vote by the American people in the discretionary powers of
our judges."

(The very nature of the drug trade requires that prosecutors have a tool
with which to deal with drug traffickers. Without drug dealers facing stiff
penalties, there would be no incentive for them to cooperate with law
enforcement.

Haines' statements regarding the "harmless" drug marijuana fail to take
into account any of the relevant medical studies of marijuana that have
found, among other things, that marijuana contains much more tar, carbon
monoxide and other dangerous chemicals than tobacco; that marijuana smoking
affects fertility in both men and women; that it has led to increases in
cancers of the head, mouth and neck; that it affects school and work
performance more than any other drug; that the Food and Drug Administration
has ruled that "smoked marijuana is neither safe nor effective as a
medicine for any ailment; and that the National Institutes of Health have
stated "patients with HIV or any diseases of the immune system should avoid
marijuana." There are many more adverse studies on marijuana.

Haines also promotes the use of needle exchange programs without looking
at, or ignoring, the facts. He should look at the 1995 Montreal study,
which found that 78 percent of needle exchange program users and 72 percent
of non-needle exchange program users shared needles. In the Vancouver
study, the rate of HIV infections for intravenous drug users rose from 2
percent prior to the needle exchange program to 27 percent after -- despite
the fact that 92 percent of the intravenous drug users used the needle
exchange program.

While I agree that we need more prevention, education and treatment
efforts, we must remember that about one-third of all people in treatment
are there only because the criminal justice system put them there. Drug
courts are but one of the new programs available.

I agree with Haines that we need more public discussion on these issues. (I
do approximately 100 lectures per year.) I hope, however, that the people
who have these discussions are more informed and willing to discuss the
real issues than Haines, who merely brought a knife to a gunfight.