PANELISTS DIFFER ON WAR ON DRUGS; NO EASY ANSWER FOUND

Any discussion about the legalization of drugs, according to a group of
panelists, is complicated because it includes the discussion of political,
economic, social and historical values.

However, about 35 people tried to tackle the issue Saturday morning at
University Presbyterian Church on Dalrymple Drive.

The panel presentation and audience discussion was organized as part of the
Louisiana Council on Human Relations' annual meeting.

The council started in 1964 with a purpose of addressing prejudice and
discrimination on the basis of race or religion.

"The drug phenomenon affects black people more than any other group,
especially on the crime scene," said Rogers Newman, a member of the council.

"Some of us, and I'm included in that, feel that the war on drugs is not
working," Newman said. "So, we decided to add this matter and see how the
people feel about it."

The panel included Eva Bayham, a history professor at Southern University;
Ralph Dreger, LSU professor emeritus of psychology; Baton Rouge police
Detective Dennis Smith; Thomas Durant, LSU professor of sociology; Herman
Kelly, pastor of Bethel AME Church in Baton Rouge; and John White, law
professor at LSU.

Although the panel members expressed wide-ranging views on the topic, they
seemed to agree that solving the drug problem is a complicated issue.

On the pro-legalizing side, Bayham said history, particularly Prohibition
and the laws meant to stop consumption of alcohol, is the best example of
why drugs should be legalized.

At one time, she said, all the drugs now considered illegal were legal to
possess and consume.

There was no increase in crime and violence, Bayham said, and use of the
drugs didn't escalate until they were made illegal.

"In 1933, the end of Prohibition, we find that Americans had blamed
Prohibition for all of the ills that came into society," Bayham said. "The
lessons of histories show that what we're doing is harming society."

On the other side of the issue, Smith said drugs are dangerous and
legalizing them would increase use and the hazard.

"Imagine the danger to the community if those drugs were legalized," said
Smith.

In addition, Smith said it's unfair to compare Prohibition and the war on
drugs.

"The No. 1 drug we hear about today in legalization is marijuana," he said.

"Alcohol is a depressant and marijuana is mind-altering."

During the audience discussion, Patricia Rickels, secretary for the
Louisiana Council on Human Relations, questioned Smith's use of
"mind-altering."

"If alcohol isn't mind-altering, what have I been seeing all these years?
Of course it's a mind-altering substance," she said. "I'm 74 and I'd love
to try it (marijuana)."

Another panelist, Dreger, also disagreed with the Prohibition analogy but
for a different reason.

"I've lived through the Prohibition era and it was a helpful thing for our
family," he said.

"I think the picture of Prohibition that has been presented to us has been
largely negative and it wasn't entirely negative."

Dreger said he wrote a position paper in 1995 that said the war on drugs
has produced so many negative side effects, such as reduction of civil
liberties and growth of prison populations, that he called for legalization
of drugs.

Since he wrote that paper, he said he has seen the situation deteriorate
enough that he's not sure that even that would help solve the drug problem.

At least eight states -- California, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii,
Maine, Oregon and Washington -- allow the infirm to receive, possess, grow
or smoke marijuana for medical purposes without fear of state prosecution,
according to The Associated Press.

But a 1970 federal law says marijuana, like heroin and LSD, has no medical
benefits and cannot be dispensed or prescribed by doctors.

In other business Saturday, the council awarded state Sen. Donald Cravins,
D-Arnaudville, and Lorna Bourg of New Iberia the first Oliver-Sigur
Humanitarian Service Award for their "outstanding contributions to human
relations in the state."