A NEW DIALOGUE ON DRUGS

How many lives have been wasted not only by drugs but by laws that
make users criminals?

Texas Gov. George W. Bush presumably used illegal drugs sometime in
his past. If he did, he and the nation are fortunate. He was not
arrested. He was not sent to prison. He was not marked for life with
a criminal record. He became an outstanding citizen, quite possibly
the next president of the United States.

How different things might have been if he had been caught and
arrested.

What a waste it would have been.

The Bush example and others like it should prompt Americans to ask
some soulsearching questions.

How many other young experimenters with drugs might have straightened
up and gone on to productive lives had they not been caught up in the
criminaljustice system?

How many lives have been ruined not only by drugs but by laws that
make criminals out of drug users and smalltime dealers?

How many new prisons wouldn't be needed if the nation hadn't chosen to
define drug use as a crime?

One of the few elected officials asking questions like these is the
Republican governor of New Mexico, Gary E. Johnson. He has
acknowledged smoking marijuana in college and trying cocaine a few
times. Now 46, Johnson is a fitness fanatic and the first governor of
New Mexico to have been elected to two consecutive fouryear terms. He
is calling for the nation to consider alternatives to the war on drugs.

In a recent interview with The New York Times, Johnson argued that the
war on drugs is a costly failure and that the hundreds of billions in
resources spent in a futile battle could be better spent on education
and other priorities. He said an overemphasis on prosecution and
incarceration have overwhelmed courts and prisons, and the federal
government needs to consider decriminalization.

Governor Johnson is not the first prominent American to suggest such a
course, but he is probably the highestranking elected official to call
for a truce in the war on drugs. His position is basically that of
the Libertarian Party, which sees drug use as an essentially
victimless crime. Among other arguments made by libertarians is that
the obsessive war on drugs actually makes the streets less safe,
because dangerous criminals are being released from prison to make
room for drug offenders.

Advocates for decriminalization also argue that the war on drugs has
eroded civil liberties as police agencies have been granted vast new
powers to ferret out dealers and confiscate property. In any war,
liberties are curtailed.

If adults were the only people involved with drugs, it might be easy
to accept the decriminalization argument. If an adult is dumb enough
to choose to scramble his or her brains with chemicals, why should
that stupidity be a crime? And why should taxpayers be expected to
pay for that person's prosecution and incarceration?

But it's not just adults. What drives the war on drugs is the fear
that children will be drawn into addiction and related crime. It is
this fear that politicians respond to when they enact ever tougher
drug laws with ever more severe penalties. It is not an unreasonable
fear.

Governor Johnson and others are right that it is time for a national
dialogue on alternatives to the war on drugs. There is a plausible
case to be made that the cost in both monetary and human terms of
the war exceeds its benefits.

But what about the children? Until the advocates of decriminalization
can show how children would be protected, the dialogue won't proceed
very far.