LEGALIZATION LOGIC FAILS TO SOLVE PROBLEM

One need only turn on the 11o'clock news to determine whether the "war on
drugs" has been a success or a failure. Border police and the FBI continue
to nab ever-increasing caches of illegal drugs, while our "tough on crime"
policies haul thousands to jail on drug trafficking and possession charges.

Yet, people young and old continue to purchase and consume large amounts of
drugs for a variety of reasons, ranging from medicinal to escapism. Even
the most ardent drug enforcers have to admit that the current offensive
against drugs has been a dismal failure, because the government cannot
prevent what people want to do merely through laws (and their enforcement).
But does this automatically mean that drugs should be legalized?

We already have a case study to determine whether drug legalization
policies will be successful. America's struggles with alcohol provide a
ready-made experiment in which the pros and cons of drug legalization can
be measured in terms of lives affected and dollars spent.

In the early portion of the 20th century, our government responded to the
demands of various temperance groups and prohibited the sale and
distribution of alcoholic beverages. At about the same time, organized
crime gained power in cities such as Chicago and New York.

Since the general populace still had a voracious appetite for alcohol,
gangsters such as Al Capone made millions dealing in this illicit trade. As
their motive was to maximize profits regardless of cost, the gangsters
handled rivals in their own, intimate way - as the "Valentine's Day
Massacre" graphically showed. The violence contributed to the eventual
repeal of Prohibition laws, and America enjoyed the products of fermented
grapes, wheat and barley once more.

In 1999, we can see what more than a half century of legalized alcohol use
has done. Gangs do not shoot each other and innocent bystanders for the
right to sell beer and wine. No one has to sneak into "speak-easies" in
order to enjoy alcohol. Jails do not bust at the seams due to arrests for
alcohol possession and sales.

Our major brewing companies fund many of our sporting events and account
for an enormous amount of television revenue, helping to support the
majestic stadiums, arenas and player-coaching salaries that have
skyrocketed in recent years. No one has to attack anyone to get a beer; an
alcoholic is more likely to beg for a dollar or so than rob someone at
gunpoint to obtain his or her "fix." And when was the last time you heard
of someone burglarizing a house to steal items for resale later just to
obtain cheap wine?

But there are costs for the use of alcoholic beverages, and those costs are
enormous. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that
in 1998, 16,189 people in the United States were killed in crashes
involving alcohol alone (not cocaine or speed, just alcohol), and 1,058,990
more were injured. Economically, this resulted in an estimated $45 billion
just from the direct results of such accidents. Indirectly, $75 billion is
estimated to be lost in reduced quality of life. With all the messages
telling people to drink responsibly and to use a designated driver or taxi,
it seems that people will do what they want to do, whether it may kill
someone or not. Can we honestly say that those who use other drugs will act
any more responsibly on the road than drunks?

If one does not drive, there is still the danger of alcohol-induced
violence. We know that alcohol acts as a depressant, suppressing
inhibitions that otherwise prevent us from doing terrible things to others
and to ourselves.

The U.S. Department of Justice reported in 1998 that four out of every 10
violent crimes involved alcohol. The victims of such crimes reported
financial losses of more than $400 million, with the average victim
experiencing out-of-pocket medical expenses of $1,500 an episode. More
depressing is the fact that in two-thirds of violent crimes in which the
perpetrator and victim know each other, alcohol is a contributing factor.

In spousal abuse cases, three out of every four incidents involved alcohol
use by the offender. Knowing that other drugs stimulate (methamphetamine
and cocaine), depress (barbiturates), impair (marijuana) or bend reality
(heroin), are we playing with fire when suggesting that such items should
be made legal (even under heavy restrictions)?

Since drugs can be highly unpredictable in their effects on the human
psyche, can we say with a straight face that there will be no increase in
such crimes (and the resultant financial effects) with legalization?

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism states that in 1992,
$18.8 billion was spent on health care services for alcohol problems, of
which $13.2 billion was for alcohol-induced health problems such as
cirrhosis and trauma (due to falls, accidents, etc.). In addition, in the
same year, 107,400 died as a result of alcohol use. Even if we assume that
such numbers have dropped 25 percent (a hefty amount), one can see the
costs are still staggering. We must remember that all drugs are lethal in
sufficient amounts; are we willing to pay the costs of legalized abuse?

What do we want to show to the next generation? Already, we see that "Just
Say No" is a joke, in part because the messengers are hypocritical. Our
high-profile celebrities make a mockery of efforts to stop drug use with
well-documented plunges into addiction and abuse.

We tell young people to stay off the bottle, but our social gatherings,
athletic events and media reek of irresponsible alcohol use. We're afraid
to take the moralistic "high road" because of all the "skeletons" of drug
abuse that bang around in our collective closets.

So, instead of changing strategy in the current war on drugs, we either
doggedly try the same old tactics that fail miserably or surrender
unconditionally in the name of individual "rights." Well, what about the
right of someone to drive without fear of sudden death via intoxicant? What
about the baby doomed to a painful life from drug-induced ailments? What
about the spouse painted black, blue and red by someone's fists, bat or
gun? Or the fan too scared to talk with a blustery drunk for fear of
pulverization? Or of anyone paying higher car and health insurance rates?

A famous person once said, "Those who don't learn from history are doomed
to repeat it." In this situation, it would be doubly tragic, for "history"
continues even today, instructing us on decisions of past generations. And
yet once more, we're about to fail the final exam.