LET'S DEBATE THIS DRUG WAR

In many senses, the debate over the United States' ineffective,
expensive and destructive drug war is already on. The problem is that
someone forgot to tell the politicians and the drug war
bureaucrats.

That the debate is on can be seen in a review of developments from
just the past week:

* Last Saturday, 5,000 people marched on State Street in downtown
Madison to protest against archaic laws that have condemned thousands
of Wisconsinites to jail and prison for the "crime'' of possessing and
using marijuana -- a substance that scientific analysis will tell you
is significantly less dangerous than alcohol.

* On Monday, New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson traveled to Washington to
inject some sanity into the nation's drug policies. Calling for
legalization of marijuana and other drugs, Johnson dared to speak a
truth rarely uttered by public officials, telling one audience: "I
hate to say it, but the majority of people who use drugs use them
responsibly. They choose when to do it. They do them at home. It's not
a financial burden.''

* On Monday, as well, it was revealed that a pair of veteran Madison
firefighters had pleaded guilty to misdemeanor drug charges --
involving incidents not related to their work. Fire Chief Debra
Amesqua, radio personality John "Sly'' Sylvester, this newspaper and a
great many citizens dared to ask: "Shouldn't longtime public servants
who make mistakes in their personal lives receive treatment, rather
than lectures and threats from political appointees?''

* All week, at Stoughton High School, students, teachers and parents
have been debating a random drug testing proposal under consideration
by the School Board. The award-winning school newspaper, the Norse
Star, announced in an editorial: "Drug Testing? Hey, School Board,
leave those kids alone!'' The editorial went on to make cogent
arguments that the plan would cost too much, produce questionable
results and invade the privacy of innocent students.

When there is ferment from Washington to Stoughton, when thousands are
in the streets, when citizens and the media question the judgment of
public officials who choose draconian solutions over common sense, the
debate is on.

The problem is that, for the most part, elected and appointed
officials refuse to engage.

After Johnson, a conservative Republican, made his common-sense plea
for a change in the way this country approaches drug policy, he was
savaged by the bureaucrats who make their living by pursuing the drug
war.

White House drug policy director Barry McCaffrey: "His pro-drug message runs
in the face of all the hard work of millions of parents, teachers, health
professionals, community leaders, coaches and clergy who are working so hard
to stem drug use.''

That's nonsense.

The good work of parents, teachers, health professionals, community
leaders, coaches and clergy to convince young people and adults not to
abuse drugs is not harmed by honest dialogue.

Only when people begin to talk about drugs and the drug war
realistically will they begin to figure out how best to tackle a
challenge that has not been met by scare tactics, tougher laws and the
exponential bloating of prison populations with people who should be
receiving treatment.

Will a realistic discussion of drug policy lead to legalization of all
drugs? Not necessarily.

A honest dialogue could lead in many directions, all of them worthy of
consideration.

The point of opening a true national discourse on drug policy is not
to reach a predetermined conclusion. The point is to bring in all the
voices that are being raised on these issues, to allow them to
confront one another, to believe that an open marketplace of ideas
will produce the best solutions.

At this point, the best thinking about drug policy is, for the most
part, being rejected by those in positions of power -- despite the
fact that the drug war has failed miserably.

The people know this. They are crying out for a dialogue.

It's time for petty politicians and pettier bureaucrats to respond --
not with insults, threats and fear-mongering, but with an
acknowledgment of what the people already know: There must be a better
way.