CANDIDATES NEED TO TALK ABOUT DRUGS

This is directed to all of us who chose to watch the debates at
Dartmouth College instead of "Whose Line Is It?" or "Diagnosis
Murder." Why is it (and they all do it), when a politician is asked a
question about drugs, or the drug war, why is it they all choke?

The latest examples were Sen. John McCain and Alan Keyes. In the
October 28th "Town Meeting Forum," a Mr. Henney of Hanover asked Sen.
McCain a simple and clear question about medical marijuana. After
complimenting the question, and saying he'd prefer to duck it, the
Senator mumbled a feeble anecdote about rope in the Navy. A Ms Wesley
of Claremont asked Ambassador Keyes to describe his drug war strategy.
The best response he could muster was to declare the nation in a moral
crisis. Imagine, those who would be our leaders, ducking and running
when confronted with simple questions about the longest-running war in
our nation's history!

Isn't it fair to say that just about everybody from the age of 18 to
55 has had marijuana cross their path at least once? You may have
chosen not to do it, but you know someone who has. Why is it, then,
that these people who are always telling us to talk to our kids about
drugs, won't talk to us about drugs?

I mean, nearly everybody knows that the drug war is a disaster, don't
they? (That is, except those whose jobs depend on it.) We spend
billions of dollars, and arrest and imprison millions of Americans,
and yet drugs remain generally available to people who want them.

The worse thing about the drug war is not its failure to stop drugs.
It's the invasions of privacy, the targeting of minority communities,
the confiscation of property. And what about the poor soul who is
enduring chemotherapy, and doesn't want to set a world record in
vomiting and just needs to get a few good hours of rest. Does the
U.S. Justice Department truly need to go after these people?

Shouldn't these things be talked about?

Thinking they should, and in a good faith attempt to give Senator
McCain and Ambassador Keyes the opportunity to redeem themselves, I'd
like to pose a few questions of my own. If the candidates are
unwilling to answer these questions, or ones like them, I courteously
urge our friends in the media to press them until we mere voters get
some solid answers.

* Do you have a plan to win the drug war? If so, what is your strict
definition of victory, and under your plan, how many more people will
have to be arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned to achieve victory?
(This is not an essay question.)

* Here in New Hampshire, people believe strongly in personal liberty.
At what point does the government have the right to take away people's
freedom and property in the name of protecting them from themselves?

* Why do we arrest people for using some drugs, and tax them for using
other drugs?

* Do you support the DEA's embargo of birdseed on the Canadian border?
Do you think that stopping birdseed will really help stop drug abuse?

* If the use of medical marijuana relieved the pain and discomfort of
chemotherapy patients, would you still support arresting people for
using it? Do you agree with Gov. Bush that states should be free to
decide for themselves on the subject of medical marijuana? (For Gov.
Bush, the question is, "If elected, would you have the Justice
Department stop prosecuting cancer patients over marijuana?")

For extra credit, Mr Henney's and Ms Wesley's questions remain
unanswered. They were: (Mr. Henney) If you do not support medical
marijuana, how do you reconcile the tolerance for alcohol with the
intolerance for marijuana? (Ms Wesley) How do you plan to continue
with the war on drugs?

I surely don't have many answers. And I don't expect any one person
will have all the answers. But can't we at least talk about the
subject like rational adults, and not be talked to like sitcom airheads?

(David Naughton is self employed and has resided in Nashua for the
past five years.)