UNDERSTANDING ECONOMICS OF WAR ON DRUGS

Karen Dillon's recent chronicle in The Star of what amounts to brigandry by
many in law enforcement underscores why the war on drugs not only was
doomed to fail, but also why fighting it assured erosion of regard for the
first principles on which the nation was founded.

When the federal government declared its war on drugs in the mid-1980s, it
looked like a perfect example of a government program that would make the
problem being addressed worse rather than better.

My skepticism was based on the belief that humankind usually behaves in an
economically rational manner. This meant the war on drugs would become an
industry on which many eventually would depend for their livelihood.

As more anti-drug warriors joined the crusade, the most compelling economic
incentives would demand an approach ensuring that the war would never end.
What would be the point of winning the war, after all, when so much
economic benefit depended on fighting it?

A never-ending war on drugs was assured because government would make
fighting it an increasingly lucrative enterprise. Government, unlike a
private enterprise, never acknowledges failure because its supply of money
is endless. Therefore, when a program fails, the federal government's
response is to increase its funding in the belief more money can solve any
problem.

With spending on the war against drug abuse having exploded over the past
15 years or so, the predicted outcome has long since become a nightmarish
reality. The illegal drug scourge is as pernicious as ever, the numbers of
those making a living from government financing is so large it will be
politically impossible to abandon it as a wasteful boondoggle, and the Bill
of Rights is being trashed in the process.

Investigative reporter Dillon's report focused on the practice of state and
local law departments working with federal agency counterparts to
improperly keep millions of dollars in the course of anti-drug actions.
Without going into the details, what amounts to circumvention of state laws
in these forfeiture cases is possible because federal law makes it easier
to abrogate what should be constitutionally protected rights.

What happens, Dillon related, is that when a state or local officer stops a
car or invades a home, the action can result in seizure of cash and
property even if little evidence of a crime exists, drug-related or
otherwise. The locals hand off the haul to the feds because state laws
generally have tighter requirements for a forfeiture than federal laws do.
The feds later return most of the loot to the locals.

So, as it turns out, not only has the war on drugs enriched its warriors
through taxpayer largess, but also allows for them to profit handsomely
from searches and seizures that violate the Fourth Amendment.

The scariest part of this is that most Americans either don't know or don't
care that it's happening. Many Americans may accept this state of affairs
as a reasonable trade-off if it helps win the war against drug abuse, but
they are playing a fool's game.

The war will never be won as long as it's so rewarding for those fighting
it. And even if it could be won, winning wouldn't be worth devaluing the
liberties of law-abiding citizens in the process.

Jerry Heaster's column appears Wednesday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. To
reach him, write the business desk at 1729 Grand Blvd., Kansas City Mo.,
64108. To share a comment on StarTouch, call (816) 889-7827 and enter 2301.
Send e-mail to jheaster@kcstar.com