BEWARE OF SEEMINGLY EASY SOLUTIONS TO 'THE DRUG PROBLEM'

In "Religion Without Revelation," Sir Julian Huxley describes the
human need to bring complex problems into a simple framework, so as to
make them easy to understand and communicate and believe.

One function of most religions is to provide simple and understandable
ideas about the great mysteries of humankind.

The same mental process unfortunately becomes ingrained in our
thinking about less grandiose or cosmic issues - just ordinary
economic and political issues about which we might just be able to do
something constructive. Nothing is as simple as it at first appears,
and it is the nonunderstanding of this basic truth that keeps
arguments roiling, politicians charging and countercharging, talk-show
hosts employed, journalists presenting their "positions" as truths,
and, of course, lawyers suing and defending. When everyone on center
stage proclaims ownership of truth - whether about abortion, gender
rights, school finance, the nonwall between church and state, the
distribution of wealth and opportunity, art that offends, you name it
- - we get a lot of entertaining editorial pages and talk shows but not
much enlightenment or agreement.

We are impatient for solutions but want our solutions and no part of
the other guy's because ours are the right ones.

This process is clearly visible in attempts to deal with what is
commonly called "the drug problem," more precisely the buying, selling
and using of illegal drugs - heroin, cocaine and various addictive
mind-altering synthetics, plus marijuana, which is mind-altering but
not addictive. (Though mind-altering and addictive, nicotine and
alcohol are not "official" parts of the problem.)

Here are some examples from recent issues of the CDT: Robert Dively
asserts that drugs can cause hell for one's self, family and friends,
and that advocates of legalization don't know about burned-out brains,
hospitalization and other consequences of private or public use of any
type of street drug. Data is not included by Mr. Dively. Implication:
All drugs are generally bad, however used. He asks for reasons that
people propose legalization.

Julian Heicklen replies and argues for legalization because the ban on
drugs is generally failing, and he offers data to support his claims.
I believe he is correct.

However, wars, including drug wars, are rarely abandoned because they
are failing - one can always call on more resources to make winning
look possible.

We could expand the drug war until our jails house half of the adult
population while most of the other half are interdicting, arresting,
trying and occasionally treating drug users.

Drug use might then level off. Heicklen would think this is a dumb
idea, and I would agree - but that's the trend.

Amelia Mahara replies to Dively saying nature is divine and perfect
and produces the plant marijuana, which is OK and different from
man-made chemicals such as cocaine, speed, etc. It's a philosophic
position worth further analysis, which, alas, is not offered.

John Haag comes closest to giving us a picture of the drug problem's
complexity and the advantages - lower crime and prison costs, etc. -
of various reforms that could be sought.

Regrettably, our sound-bite reading habits and demand for simple
solutions work against thoughtful reflection on such offerings.

Why, then, might we move toward legalizing (caution with this word!)
drugs? Because the cost of the failing war far exceeds the benefits it
is producing.

There are ample data (more than space permits here) to prove the
correctness of this assertion, particularly if one considers the good
that could be done with the money and person power that are now
pursuing consensual or victimless crimes - from suspicion to detection
to arrest to trial to appeal to incarceration. Think also of the
relief from police bribery and other corruption at home, and from
insurgent wars in drug-producing countries that are sustained by the
high drug prices that our drug war guarantees. And yet, too many
people accept the simple notion that all illegal drug use is bad
(check your definition!) and that violations of the law against
buying, selling, owning or using them should be fiercely enforced.
It's simple: Stay tough on crime; just fight harder.

Can we really mean this? Not if we remember Huxley's observation, stay
aware of the human need to simplify, and accept the truth that nothing
is as simple as it at first appears.

We need to broaden the definition of the drug problem, realize its
complexities and work with others toward effective reforms.

And if we could apply this thinking to other issues, we might be less
contentious with one another.

But then our opinion pages wouldn't be as entertaining for the fight
fans among us.