DRUG-WAR CASUALTIES

A New Bill Reads Like A Primer On Drug-war Excess.

The provisions of the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution
may soon join those of the Second, Fifth and Tenth as the "neglected
rights." They are about to become civilian casualties of the war on
drugs.

The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, passed unanimously by the
Senate and now awaiting what will likely be swift approval in the
House, is intended "[t]o provide for the punishment of methamphetamine
laboratory operators, provide additional resources to combat
methamphetamine production, trafficking, and abuse in the United
States, and" — the ominous part — "for other purposes."

Those other purposes include significant jail time for merely talking
about drugs. Three years for "posting," "publicizing," or even
"linking to" certain types of information, including "indirect
advertising," whatever that means. Ten years for teaching or
demonstrating use.

One can only imagine the effect of applying the bill retroactively:
These ten-year stints in jail would have been far more common than
tours in Vietnam. And, if you believe the rhetoric of the bill's
supporters, that's perfectly appropriate, for drugs are as evil as
Communism and as dangerous as the Vietcong. Republican Congressman
Chris Cannon, the sponsor of the House bill, dispatched aide Chris
MacKay to argue that "anything we can do to win the war on drugs is
worth doing."

ANYTHING? Conservatives may disagree about the best way to deal with
drug abuse, but they should all be wary of any crusade that sacrifices
our system of laws and rights in pursuit of any overarching social
goal. It is hardly conservative to blithely trample over traditional
constitutional guarantees in a quest for material equality, smog
reduction, or even a drug-free society — an ideal that cannot escape
charges of utopianism, for this planet has never seen such a thing.

Consider one section of the bill, entitled, "CRIMINAL PROHIBITION ON
DISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION RELATING TO THE MANUFACTURE OF
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES."

It reads:

It shall be unlawful for any person to teach or demonstrate the
manufacture of a controlled substance, or to distribute by any means
information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use
of a controlled substance, with the intent that the teaching,
demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an
activity that constitutes a Federal crime.

Vague, yet restrictive, intended to punish words rather than actions,
and most certainly punitive — this section of the bill reads like a
primer on drug-war excess. As do the provisions permitting
law-enforcement officials to search your home or office without what
are now court-guaranteed safeguards. No longer will you be entitled to
a timely inventory of items seized. And no longer will you be entitled
to ever learn that a raid took place, if only intangible items were
taken. For example, federal agents could break into your home when you
are away, copy the addresses of every website that you've visited in
the last six months, and leave without ever informing you what
happened. Thus you (and your lawyer) would have no opportunity to
challenge the raid in court.

Congress may be the court of public opinion, and the public's wishes
are clear on this matter. But the Constitution acts as a higher court,
and we can hope that, when the time comes, at least the third branch
of government will fulfill its duty.