THE DRUG CZAR'S CIRCULAR REASONING

Gen. Barry McCaffrey is coming to Vallejo to tour the Beverly Hills
area. The anti drug- abuse workers laud his visit. They view his
coming as an official stamp of approval for their efforts. I see it as
the acceptance of Federal intrusion into local affairs and the erosion
of constitutional freedoms.

I distrust the U.S. drug policy because it is not practical or
constitutional. The government should not attempt to regulate personal
conduct that does not affect other people. It should not enter this
personal area, because when it does it harms society more than it
helps. The Constitution does not grant it those powers. I believe that
the recreational use of drugs is unhealthy, but controlling the
activity is outside government authority.

Gen. McCaffrey's philosophy is an example of thinking that dangerously
extends the government's power into citizens personal areas. He seems
to believe that the government may exercise any power not expressly
prohibited to it by the Constitution. For example, the Constitution
expressly prohibits the government from controlling the press or
establishing a religion, while it allows government to declare war
and collect taxes. Nevertheless, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments say
that the people retain the rights and powers not delegated to the
United States.

McCaffrey shows his thinking by some statements in The World & I. He
defends anti drug-abuse laws with the classic "harm to society" and
"personal risks" arguments. He cites this statistic: "Drug abuse in
the home renders a woman 28 times more likely to be killed by a close
relative." That statistic is so vague that it's meaningless. What
relationship does the drug usage have with the killings? Is she the
drug user, the close relative, or someone else? Does the drug user
kill her and is that same person the close relative? Also, I doubt the
accuracy of the statistic, because America does not accurately count
the drug users who never become addicted or get arrested.

McCaffrey's personal risk argument is the more frightening one. " . .
. Americans have decided that people do not have a right to ride
motorcycles without wearing helmets, drive cars without using seat
belts, pollute the environment at will, or endanger themselves and
others by refusing vaccination or similar life-saving health measures.
In general, our laws indicate that self-destructive activity should
not be permitted. . . . U.S. law does not grant people the right to
destroy themselves or others. " That partially quoted justification
for U.S. drug policy contains so many reasoning errors that one
suspects he makes them intentionally to mislead the public.

The risks he compares are not alike. Operating a vehicle without the
proper personal protective equipment is a personal health risk.
Outlawing that conduct reduces the slight likelihood they may harm
themselves. However, polluting the environment is an act that is
highly likely to harm others.

Outlawing the activity potentially saves others from harm. Also, the
personal health risks from driving without protective equipment are
only remotely similar to those of using certain recreational drugs.
One is a passive risk, because people can drive for a lifetime without
an accident and suffering from the risks taken. However, the
consequences of using drugs are immediate and possibly cumulative. The
extent of those consequences varies. Nevertheless, McCaffrey cannot
make a believable and ethical argument when he tries to justify anti
drug-abuse laws by comparing unrelated conduct as similar health risks.

McCaffrey uses circular reasoning when he says, "In general, our laws
indicate that self-destructive activity should not be permitted." If
the government has a law against something, that's the same as saying,
it does not permit it. So, McCaffrey is saying that, the government
does not permit self-destructive activity so that indicates they
should not permit it. He uses what government does as proof that what
it does it right.

His final assumption is most frightening: "U.S. law does not grant
people the right to destroy themselves or others." As noted above, the
government does not grant the people any rights because they are born
with them. The people voluntarily limited some of their rights and
gave the government the power to pass laws that protected them from
each other. Nevertheless, despite McCaffrey's combining the two, the
people did not give up the right to control their bodies and the
government should not attempt to usurp them.

Our drug policies are equally bad everywhere. Now they ask 1.6 billion
dollars for Columbia's drug wars, because our four-year "successful"
drug war in the neighboring countries of Peru and Bolivia pushed the
problem into Columbia. So, while I would welcome an opportunity to
question his drug policies, I won't be inviting him to my
neighborhood.