STATES BEGIN REJECTING THE INEFFECTIVE WAR ON DRUGS IN FAVOR OF SENSIBLE
REFORMS

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and
hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins,
most of them imaginary." - H.L. Mencken

America has a long tradition of periodic mass hysterics that are forgotten
or even mocked by later generations.

In the 1920s, religious leaders preached earnestly about the demon-liquor.
In the 1950s, every non-conformist was an instant commie and, therefore, an
unparalleled threat to democracy. In 1999, thousands of Americans spent
millions to prepare for the Y2K apocalypse.

And hysteria can go on for decades. An example: The War on Drugs.
Fortunately, the end (while not near) can be glimpsed in recent ballot
initiatives.

California voters passed, by a 2 to 1 margin, a constitutional amendment
requiring treatment instead of incarceration for nonviolent drug offenders.
The law is expected to save hundreds of millions of dollars that would
otherwise go to operate and construct prisons.

In Massachusetts, voters narrowly defeated a similar measure 53 to 47
percent.

Colorado voters gave the nod to medical marijuana. Patients with
debilitating conditions will now be issued identification cards enabling
them to use the law as an affirmative defense should a prosecutor bring
charges.

Nevada voters also passed a medical marijuana law in a 65 to 35 percent
decision. This makes 10 states that have voted to legalize marijuana for
medical purposes.

Two states, Oregon and Utah, acted to limit police in the War on Drugs by
requiring that proceeds from seized property must be used for drug treatment
or public education instead of being added to law enforcement budgets.

In Alaska, the broadest of all drug-related ballot initiatives failed 61 to
39 percent. The proposed law would have completely legalized marijuana
(subject to regulation like alcohol), granted amnesty for all persons
convicted of marijuana offenses and created an advisory group to study
restitution for those convicted of marijuana offenses.

Although the measure failed, its proponents are surely encouraged by the
result and will likely return with a less sweeping measure.

America is finally beginning to understand there are always costs to
legislating morality. In the War on Drugs, the cost is exorbitant. In April,
we reached a record 1.86 million imprisoned adults. The Omaha World-Herald
reported in April the U.S. now has the dubious distinction of being first
worldwide for highest rate of incarceration. And, according to the Aug. 31,
2000, World-Herald, there are 1.5 million children with a parent in prison,
a 60 percent increase since 1991.

The War on Drugs costs us in other ways too. We now know the White House
drug policy office offered financial incentives to magazines and television
networks that ran stories discouraging drug use.

Public service announcements are one thing. But offering financial
incentives to change a show's content comes dangerously close to censorship.

In Los Angeles, in the largest corruption trial in the city's history, many
of the charges are related to manipulation of drug charges: The money is
big, and the evidence easily manipulated.

Even proponents of the War on Drugs admit they are losing. In March, Barry
McCaffrey (the government's so-called Drug Czar) appeared before a House
Appropriations subcommittee and testified that the prices of cocaine and
heroin have fallen to record lows and remain widely available. His report
also stated that 4.7 million people have tried methamphetamine and that its
use is spreading. (World-Herald March 23, 2000)

As Mark Twain said about alcohol, "Prohibition only drives drunkenness
behind doors and into dark places and does not cure or even diminish it."
The importance of even one state, such as California or Alaska, reforming
its drug laws should not be underestimated.

These states provide a comparison and undermine the often-hysterical claims
of law enforcement groups about what will happen if some drug use is
legalized.

Just like Vermont undermined conservative claims about how the institution
of marriage would be destroyed if GLBT people gained equality, so will
conservative claims about mass violence and anarchy be undermined after
reasonable drug law reforms are put into effect.

The issue is not simple, and there are legitimate grounds for debate. Drug
abuse is a real problem. It ruins lives and can even kill.

The fundamental question, however, is how we should solve the problem. Shall
we continue locking nonviolent drug offenders in cages? Or should we provide
treatment and education but allow individuals to live their lives in the way
they choose so long as they do not harm others?

After Nov. 7, the correct choice is becoming increasingly clear.