LEGALIZING DRUGS:

Ending War On Drugs Has Downside

San Francisco --- "The war on drugs wrecked my life much more than
drugs," Amy Pofahl told the Associated Press this month. No lie. A
federal court sentenced Pofahl to 24 years behind bars because she was
found guilty of conspiracy in her husband's drug operation, while he
apparently arranged a plea bargain with federal officials that limited
the time he served to some four years in a German clink.

This month, President Clinton pardoned Pofahl, who had served nine
years of her sentence, as well as four other victims of draconian
federal drug policy. This prompted readers to write in and ask: Why
not end the war on drugs?

This question always make me uncomfortable. The libertarian in me
doesn't believe in intrusive government laws, but the realist in me
can't stomach the legalization arguments typically presented.
Legalization advocates tend to see few or no negative consequences in
legalizing drugs.

They're wrong. There is a downside: Legalization would result in
increased drug use. For many individuals --- children, unstable adults
prone to addiction --- legalization could be poison, a ticket to
degradation and misery. What's more, the plight of addicts would not
occur in a vacuum, but easily could lead to more urban blight, more
homelessness, and more despair. An end to the war on drugs would have
its casualties as well.

The fact is, no one knows what would happen if the United States
legalized drugs.

Drug war opponent Eric Sterling of the Criminal Justice Policy
Foundation understands this. Sterling helped write the 1980s drug laws
his group now works to overturn. "A way to think about it that is
useful is that we have engaged in a very long, thorough experiment in
prohibition as a method in controlling drugs. The results are in, and
this method is a disaster," Sterling said last week.

Hence, Sterling supports drug-war foes who have called for states'
rights --- a classic Republican theme --- for drug laws. States could
maintain prohibition, or they could choose to decriminalize a drug or
drugs.

A regional approach would allow states to customize their laws to best
address their specific drug problems.

To Washington's dismay, the local control movement is alive. Witness
how California and other states have legalized medical marijuana.

Oddly, as the legalize-it crowd is pushing for an end to drug laws,
Washington continues to churn out bills with harsher penalties.
Congress currently is working on measures to increase the sentences
for cocaine and amphetamine possession.

Do members really believe these harsher sentences will win the drug
war? ACLU legislative counsel Rachel King noted that while some
lawmakers believe the longer terms will pay off, many know better.
They'll vote for tougher penalties, however, because they are afraid
that they will be labeled as soft on crime if they vote against them.
Members of both parties are equally to blame.

American University law professor Margaret C. Love recalls what a
veteran warden once told her: "If you can't get their attention in 36
months, you might as well let them go." After three years, Love noted,
families may not wait for an inmate, who then has less incentive to go
straight.

Instead, so that D.C. dons can look tough, the federal sentence for
possession of 5 grams of methamphetamine or crack is five years. Five
living years. Hey, why not bring back dungeons?

It is a waste of breath to cry, "Legalize it." The public isn't on
board. Washington pols would rather cut Social Security --- and you
know how unlikely that is --- than kill federal drug laws.

Whereas, Washington might listen if voters demanded a moratorium on
federal drug sentence increases. Here is an idea that is reasonable,
humane and not likely to escalate drug use --- and unlike the push for
legalization, it is eminently doable, for good reason.

Debra Saunders is a columnist for The San Francisco Chronicle. Her
column appears occasionally.