A MORE SENSIBLE DRUG POLICY

Cambridge, Mass. There are very few issues in American politics that
generate such hyperbole and draconian rhetoric as our nation's drug
policy. For the past twenty years, the typical tough-on-drugs tripe
has been a staple of political debates and campaigns.

But in the latter half of this decade have come a few chinks in the
armor of the drug warriors, openings which should force us to rethink
this nation's war on drugs. Propositions allowing for the use of
medical marijuana have passed -- in some cases by overwhelming margins
- -- in Alaska, Arizona, California, the District of Columbia, Oregon,
Nevada, and Washington.

The always-outspoken Reform Party governor of Minnesota, Jesse
Ventura, has suggested decriminalizing drugs such as marijuana and
treating possession of these substances as a civil infraction, much
like a speeding ticket.

But Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico -- a Republican, no less --
has upped the ante further, calling for the legalization of marijuana
and heroin. The 2000 elections will no doubt bring even more referenda
on legalizing or decriminalizing drugs.

The war on drugs is a failure. Illicit substances are still widely
available all across the country. While overall rates of illegal drug
use have declined, deaths from these drugs have increased in recent
years to 9,000 annually.

Most frighteningly, drug use among teens -- the group most vulnerable
to the dangers of illicit drugs -- is on the rise.

This failed war has been an expensive boondoggle. Federal anti-drug
spending has ballooned from $1.5 billion in 1981 to $17 billion this
year. State and local governments will waste another $20 billion on
this doomed effort.

Even worse, most of this budget has gone not to education or research.
The majority of this money has been spent on law enforcement, prisons,
and the other cruel instruments of prohibition.

Author Dan Baum notes that of 1.1 million people arrested in the
United States in 1990, about 264,000 -- almost 25 percent -- were
charged with possession of marijuana. No wonder our courts are
strained and our prisons overflowing.

Between 1990 and 1995, as the average jail sentence for drug crimes
nearly doubled (47.1 months to 85.4 months), the average time served
for violent crimes actually declined (125.4 months to 92.3 months).
Nearly 400,000 men and women are jailed in this country as nonviolent
drug offenders.

The answer to the war on drugs is not prohibition but regulation. The
legalization of several substances under certain bounds specified by
the government is the best way to control drug use in this country.

First, regulation reduces the awful toll of deaths caused by the
underground improper use of many substances. DAMIT -- Drugs at MIT --
recognizes the need for this new approach in the wake of the death of
Richard Guy '99.

Regulation emphasizes an education policy, one which informs potential
users of the risks and hazards of each drug and gives them
instructions insuring the safest possible use.

Second, regulation destroys the corrupt underground economy of drug
trafficking. Allowing limited means by which substances may be legally
available ends the need for a black market.

Third, a more sensible drug policy frees billions of dollars, money
which can be used to combat truly violent and dangerous criminals or
be put to any other use society wishes.

In the early part of this century, many people felt that alcohol was
so dangerous that they successfully lobbied for a constitutional
prohibition on its manufacture. Their efforts only drove drinking
underground into speakeasies.

Additionally, the prohibition was a golden opportunity for organized
crime to expand its reach and grab control of liquor trafficking.
After a little more than a decade, the American people realized
prohibition of alcohol was a failure and chose government regulation
over an outright ban.

When will we learn from the past and realize that government
regulation is the best way to control drugs today?

Prohibition of the more benign substances, such as marijuana, makes
absolutely no sense. Marijuana is not physically addictive and
arguably poses less danger to the user than alcohol and tobacco, two
legally available drugs.

While marijuana should be subject to legal controls similar to those
of alcohol and tobacco, no one's interests are served by its
prohibition. The government has many, many more fundamental interests
to pursue than locking up as criminals those who simply enjoy an
occasional joint.

Some drugs, such as cocaine, crack, and heroin, are so dangerous as to
preclude any thoughts of legalization. But the conduct of government
drug control needs to change here as well. Rather than focusing on
costly punishment schemes, society should redouble its efforts to
educate people about the use and risks of these drugs.

As groups such as DAMIT recognize, fully informing users about the
associated hazards is the most sensible anti-drug policy. At the very
least, this open information minimizes the number of people driven
underground into unsafe scenarios, and may cause many users to think
twice about their habits.

These tactics will pay far more dividends than the current witchhunt
of nonviolent drug users.

After billions of dollars wasted and hundreds of thousands, if not
millions, of people incarcerated as a result of America's draconian
drug policies, it's time for a change.

Let's advance a reasonable drug policy based on regulation and
education as the best way to fight the war on drugs.