THE DRUG WAR: PRO, CON AND POSTSCRIPT

Several weeks ago I watched a television interview with William F. Buckley,
one of the prime spokesman for conservative causes for a half-century.

Among other subjects in the interview was the "war on drugs." Buckley has
championed the decriminalization of some outlawed drugs. He said that the
debate has been stifled because if people propose doing away with some drug
laws, they are labeled as "pro drug use."

Merely taking the decriminalization side of the debate should never label
one as pro-drug. The arguments should stand for themselves and not reflect
on the debater.

Here are summaries of the major arguments on both sides, with a postscript
of my own. For and against legalization on the war on drugs:

Against legalization:

Drug use harms individuals and society. Drugs not only harm the drug user
but drag down close family and friends alike. The effects of drug use are
not just confined to the individual user but permeate society as well.

Society has a right and a duty to determine what is good and what is bad.
Through our laws, we make all kinds of distinctions. We make distinctions
even between similar kinds of activities. For instance, we differentiate
between driving fast on a city street, which may kill innocents, and
driving on a race track, at which willing participants may be killed.

Likewise, we can determine which drugs are beneficial and productive and
which ones are harmful. And the drugs proscribed are harmful and
unproductive. There is a good reason why nearly every nation in the world
places some type of drugs on their illegal-use list.

If these now-illegal drugs are made legitimate, there is no telling how
many people will try them. We will become a country of zombies, of drug
addicts, of distorted souls.

The war on drugs helps to keep us healthy physically and emotionally. It is
the duty of society through trial and error and study to do this.

Yes, we do need a sort of paternalistic government. Government tells us all
the time what is safe and unsafe, and we are better off for it.

If the war on drugs has not been as successful as it could be, it is
because we have not really waged a full-scale war.

For legalization:

The war on drugs, however well-intended, has corrupted us. It has nourished
gangs, filled our prisons and eroded civil liberties without really ending
the use of illegal drugs.

The war on drugs has been so corrupting that entire foreign governments
have been held hostage by narco-terrorists. Colombia is only the most
well-known example of this. Daily life on the streets of many countries,
including our own, is made more dangerous by the war on drugs, not safer.

Though drug use may be unhealthy and debilitating, it is eventually up to
the individual to determine. The state has no right to tell people what
they can do with their own bodies. Only when one person directly and
physically harms another should the state intervene.

The war on drugs can never be won. There are too many vested interests the
world over that like the present situation. Indeed, it is possible to
believe that all large drug cartels would argue in favor of the war on
drugs. It is the illegality of drugs that inflates profits and fuels their
fortunes.

Postscript:

The war on drugs is slowly but surely eroding our civil liberties. In
several public school districts in Texas (for example, Lockney and Sundown,
both near Lubbock) all students in certain grades are drug tested. If a
student refuses to be tested, that is taken to be the same as drug-positive.

The Lockney district has been challenged in the federal courts by a parent
who refused to sign a testing consent form. The lawsuit pivots on the
Fourth Amendment. As expected, most parents in the Lockney district support
the drug testing plan.

If the federal courts uphold the drug testing policy, where will this lead?
Will all college students be tested somewhere? Will all citizens be tested
in order to receive government benefits?

Buckley is a true conservative. He wants to conserve our important
liberties and freedoms. Our important liberties are not to be compromised
even when an entire community, with one lone dissent, votes to test all
students.

Allan Saxe is an associate professor of political science and a
longtime resident of Arlington. You can call him at (817) 548-5558 or
write to him in care of the `Star-Telegram' at 1111 W. Abram St.,
Arlington, TX 76013.