WEIGHING THE ALTERNATIVES TO THE 'WAR ON DRUGS'

The question of how to deal with illegal drugs has risen again. A prominent
member of the political scene, Gov. Bob Johnson of New Mexico, has recently
come forward urging the legalization of all "controlled substances."

As far back as 1985, the Rev. Andrew Leigh Gunn proposed in Washington,
D.C., that drugs be legalized for public, no-prescription sale, and that
their distribution be taken over by the federal government.

That was a courageous public statement and he deserved high praise for
being one of the first persons in a position of authority, where it
probably cost him dearly, to speak out in favor of giving serious
consideration to a new approach to a pervasive and demoralizing problem.

Unfortunately, political leaders, then and now, seem incapable of
understanding that programs intended to alleviate social ills need to be
evaluated in terms of their efficiency. If a program does not work, then a
different approach should be tried. Defeat, in a just cause, is not a cause
for shame.

Enormous costs

Enormous sums have been expended to comb at drug use. With President Bush,
outlays reached almost $10 billion a year. Whole armies of law enforcement
offi-cers, paramilitary forces, and persons in-volved within the criminal
justice system - the courts and the prisons - were locked into an effort to
control illegal trafficking in drugs.

By the beginning of 1996, total expenditures reached $250 billion. Can
anyone honestly assert that this immense deployment of resources has
achieved its stated purpose?

Even those intimately involved in the so-called War on Drugs, i.e.William
Bennett, former drug czar, admit that less than 10 percent of the drugs
coming into this country are intercepted. The only words of complacent
satisfaction with what is being done come from those with a vested interest
in a system which provides them with a job, or which would impair their
reputation if the truth were known. The War on Drugs is a hopeless war.

As things stand now, an international network of men and women operates
outside the law in a field more lucrative, and therefore more tempting,
than almost any other form of endeavor. It requires no training and no
talent and the profits can be enormous. All this, for but one reason: It is
illegal.

Prohibition failed

We saw what happened when we tried to prohibit the use of alcohol. The
consumption of that drug was not eliminated. Was it even decreased?

Responses to that question vary. What is certain is that unlawful use,
production and distribution of alcohol spread like a pox everywhere. Since
there was no control over the product, many persons were poisoned, made
blind, even killed.

And since profits soared to astronomical heights, gang wars erupted over
who should rule different territories. Moreover, because many people
thought they had a right to "choose their own poison;' the citizenry was
pitted against the constabulary in a civil war which could not be won by
the forces of law and order, making a mockery of the law.

We are faced with a strikingly similar situation today regarding illegal
drugs. Shouldn't we be able to learn something from a recent, crystal-clear
example?

Prohibition ended because it was recognized that no law could stop people
from using even one drug. It is well known what havoc alcohol causes.
Alcoholism is the American disease. Even so and let us be thankful for it -
we are not going to repeat the folly of Prohibition. You cannot legislate
morality. Human frailty is not amenable to law.

Why then, should we not legalize the use of all "controlled substances?"

Valid objections

To be sure, there are valid and compelling objections to this suggestion,
and there would be serious risks involved in placing dangerous substances
on sale where everyone could purchase them. But don't we do that already?
Do not alcohol and tobacco account for more illnesses and suffering, and
yes, even deaths, than all illegal drugs combined do today? Isn't there an
element of hypocrisy in this?

Just because heroin provides a shorter road to dependency and
hospitalization than does nicotine, does that render cigarette sales
benign? Is coke more injurious than gin? Is Cointreau more dangerous that
Chablis? If we are going to draw a line somewhere between drugs that are
permitted and those that are forbidden, what criteria shall we use?

Obviously, a hierarchy of "worse, worser and worst" is absurd. All drugs
can be harmful. If we are not going to prohibit the use of all of them,
then it is hypocritical to prohibit the use of only certain ones.

More important, by far, is the simple, incontrovertible fact that we are
incapable of prohibiting the use of any. A United Nations study, titled
"Breaking the Drug Chain," states that in Iran the death penalty is given
"frequent use" in an attempt to reduce the use of heroin, but "even so,
estimates of the number of Iranian addicts run as high as 2 million."

On the same page in this tract we read, "Malaysia, by liberal dispensation
of the death penalty, has sought to suppress opium traffickers' transit
trade through its territory, from the 'GoldenTriangle' of poppy production
in Burma, Laos and Thailand, but domestic heroin addiction has risen anyway."

Unrealistic goals

It is essential, in all undertakings, not to lose sight of what is
practical and attainable. Many of our dreams for a better world have great
appeal, but if they are unrealistic then we should move on to what can be
accomplished and leave aside the chimerical.

If drug use were to be legalized, what measures could be taken to render
the transition least perilous?

Pastor Gunn suggested a massive educational campaign to make clear the
dangers of drug use and abuse. Certainly this should be a fundamental part
of any changeover.

Throughout most of the years in which we have been fighting the drug war,
more money has been allocated to interdiction than to education.
Legalization would free up vast sums for the latter, would certainly
release more than enough money to cover expenses.

Drug clinics

All places where drugs were on sale could also serve as clinics where
counselors would be on duty at all times to talk, individually, with anyone
wishing advice or help.

Suppose all first-time users were urged 'to view tapes showing the mental
and physical effects of the drug requested? What if in each clinic there
was a library of information covering all aspects of addiction
consequences, withdrawal, rehabilitation and cure (if any there is)?

Drug users, no longer compelled to hide from the law, would be free in such
places to speak openly with any and all who wished to learn, firsthand,
what a 'habit can entail. They would be there to serve as examples of the
fearful wreckage drug use can cause.

In legal clinics, each user could have a Me so that exact dosage would be
known. Lethal combinations of drugs could be avoided. Infection and disease
from the use of unclean equipment would be eliminated. All products would
be under strict government control for quality and potency so that deaths
from overdose would cease. First aid and treatment would be available for
anyone in need.

Would organized crime lose one of its most lucrative sources of income?
Yes. Almost all drugs for which there is any demand can be produced for a
pittance. With legalization of all drugs, the Mob would be out of business
in the area which gives it its greatest leverage. Put a dollar value on
that alone. Think what it could pay for.

Forbidden fruit

There is yet another aspect of legalization which bears scrutiny. Human
nature, being what it is: forbidden fruit is forever tempting. It doesn't
matter whether the subject is 10 years old, or 80. There is a mystique of
that which is prohibited and there is a universal need to proclaim autonomy
by defying authority, or by revolt.

At least in some cases, if all drugs were legally available, the urge to
seek forbidden pleasures and to thumb our noses at those telling us what is
best for us would vanish. It could make a subtle difference.

Today, legions of agents, in vehicles of every description, in helicopters
and on ocean-going vessels, are now occupied in trying to stop the entry of
drugs into this country. Federal, state and local officers everywhere are
engaged in battling the sale and use of drugs. Probably no court in the
land has avoided hearings and trials related to drugs.

The Washington Post has stated that, "The number of drug cases in federal
courts has jumped more than 300 percent since 1980, transforming them into
little more than processing plants for low-level drug offenders .... In the
District of Columbia, southern Florida, Texas, California and the
Southwest, courts are being forced to abdicate their traditional role as
forums for important constitutional issues in order to deal with the drug
case influx...."

Probation officers, wardens and jailers by the thousands must supervise
druggies. The country's prisons are so overcrowded that dangerous criminals
of all sorts are being indiscriminately released. Costs in the drug war are
increasing geometrically.

Consider alternatives

It's time to weigh the alternatives. A moral stand against what is evil is
in every way justified. No one, except those who profit from it, favors the
drug culture. But if we cannot do more than make an occasional dent in it,
no matter how much we spend, then surely we should look at a way to place
controls on it which offer known advantages.

To those parents who say, "I don't want drugs made available to my
children," there is an unfortunate and inescapable answer. "There is hardly
a high school, or a street comer anywhere, where drugs are not easily
purchased already."

The list of those who favor the legalization of drugs is growing. Surely it
is time to test their opinion.