THE WAR ON METH: NOBLE MOTIVES, BAD POLICY

The recent road show sponsored by Congressman Steve Pearce & Co.
should drive home the point concerning meth and other drugs. What we
have done up to this point has not worked. Don't get me wrong here,
I'll be the first to say that it is always tragic when anyone becomes
a slave to drugs. The societal cost is far-reaching, the dollar cost
is staggering. But sadly, we are now no closer to winning the war on
drugs than when we started.

The 70-plus years of prohibition sure enough has its results. More
addicts, more kids on drugs, a huge black market and all of the crime
and disease associated with it. We, as a society, cannot be proud of
a policy that does not deter the abuse, stem the flow, or otherwise
have a positive effect on the problem.

In fact, society should be outraged that current policy has actually
made the situation worse.

The enactment of more laws that do not work is partisan folly and
posturing designed to get or keep somebody in office. The simple
truth of the matter is that there will always be a percentage of the
populace who are prone to drug abuse, prescription or illegal. The
question is, how do we best handle that percentage. Knowing that
current policy doesn't work, wouldn't it be prudent and mindful to
avoid making the same mistakes?

Since society is, and will be, stuck with a certain amount of drug
abuse, regardless of prohibitive or regulatory laws, do we want drugs
under the rule of law or would we rather have drugs in the hands of
criminals? If you want drugs under the rule of law then let's tax,
regulate, inspect and control them. If you like the current
prohibition and want to keep all the ills that come with it, do more
of what you're doing now.

Sure, it sounds counterproductive to decriminalize or legalize, but
think about it, it's the only way to truly get control of the drug
situation. Yes, it's controversial, but so was getting rid of alcohol
prohibition. A bitter pill to swallow. Perhaps 50 or so years from
now we'll look back and say "I'm glad we got that drug war stopped".
A pretty scary thought for some folks, but what's more frightening is
we might be saying "120 years of the drug war and it's still getting
worse." We may not be around by then but our kids and grandchildren
will be. What legacy will we leave for them?

Why not declare "drug peace" and put the street dealers completely
out of business? No more turf battles leaving our kids dead in the
streets, no more burden on the taxpayers by filling our prisons with
nonviolent users. Granted, there will be some pain coupled with
change. For the first year or two in any decriminalization model,
drug use increases, but then it precipitates downward, below previous levels.

How do we fix it you ask? First we repeal and replace current drug
laws. Alcohol and tobacco regulation is a good example to follow.
Convert the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) into the DIRA, (the Drug
Inspection and Regulation Agency). No loss of jobs, just enforcement
of a different set of laws. Laws that will eventually lead to a
solution, rather than exacerbating the problem.

One of those laws must say that no tax dollars will be spent on the
treatment of addiction. If you get hooked, don't go crying to
government for help. That's a private sector responsibility.
Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for the consequences of someone's bad habit.

Many disturbing questions remain. What candidate would dare run on a
platform of "drug peace"? An honest one maybe? Would you vote for
such a person? Do we continue the current, Draconian drug war policy
simply to save face, all too ashamed to admit we were wrong? As
usual, I believe we're better than that. In my opinion, the sooner we
swallow the bitter pill, the quicker society will be healed of
rampant, uncontrolled drug abuse.