WILL COMMON-SENSE DRUG POLICY WORK?

There are four principles we frequently use elsewhere in our republic.

One of the people who responded to a recent interactive editorial about
America's war on drugs threw out an interesting challenge. "What sort of
drug policy," asked Vera Bradova, "would a constitutional rationalist with
libertarian tendencies (the editorial page editor's self-described
philosophy) support?"

Well, let's try.

Most of us might agree on a few common-sense principles that are applied
fairly regularly in our republic: 1. What people do to themselves is not
properly the concern of "society." 2. People are responsible for their
behavior, and it IS society's business when those actions harm others. 3.
We have a special obligation to protect our children. 4. Public policy
(including taxation) can and sometimes should seek to influence individual
behavior.

But can we apply that common sense to drug policy, or are we too irrational
about the subject? Using those principles, we might some day come up with
something like:

1. End the war on drugs. All it's doing is creating a band of almost
untouchable, filthy rich multinational criminals, filling our jails with
people who shouldn't be there and making corruption too lucrative for many
public officials to pass up. People have always ingested substances that
can cause them harm. Why single out one kind of unapproved drug when
alcohol and tobacco do far more harm to individuals and society than all
the illegal ones combined?

2. But strengthen and make absolute the penalties when people cross the
line into behavior that harms others. Make sure all laws are clearly
understood, the punishment concretely defined. Then uphold those laws --
each time, all the time -- whether the contributing factor was alcohol,
cocaine or just a bad attitude.

3. Make the law especially tough on criminals who prey on children. Anyone
who enables a child to experiment with dangerous drugs goes to jail, the
first time for a long time. The prison sentence for a second offense would
be so long that there would be no third offense. No plea bargains. No parole.

4. Use the state's power to regulate when, where and how such substances
are sold and to whom, just as we now do with alcohol and tobacco. Use the
state's ability to educate to discourage drug abuse, the way we have made
drunken-driving less acceptable and greatly reduced smoking. And tax the
drugs the way alcohol and tobacco are now -- it makes sense to collect such
funds if we are going to use them more wisely than we do now.

Those are the broad strokes, thrown out for discussion. What should the
details be? Are there any of the four you disagree with? Even if you do,
isn't this overall approach worth considering, given how much time, effort
and money have been wasted on the present course?