IT'S TIME FOR NEW TACTICS IN AMERICA'S WAR ON DRUGS

AUSTIN, Texas -- Heads up, team: I think we're starting to see a major
change in the old Zeitgeist on the issue of drugs. This is one of those
seismic shifts when the unsayable suddenly becomes sayable, when we notice
that the emperor is wearing no clothes. The main problem with the war on
drugs -- you've probably noticed -- is that we're losing.

We're also seeing the start of a consensus that it's time to try something
else. One way you can tell when one of these major shifts is happening is
when some of those speaking out are so respected and respectable that they
give cover to others who are more conformist.

The Lindesmith Centre in New York has marshaled an impeccable set of world
citizens behind the simple proposition that the global war on drugs is now
causing more harm than drug abuse itself. Among those who signed that
declaration are Walter Cronkite, former U.N. Secretary-General Javier Perez
de Cuellar, former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz, Nobelist Oscar
Arias, and on and on and on.

There are also several indications that the people are well ahead of the
politicians on this one. On Election Day, medical marijuana initiatives
passed in Washington state, Alaska, Arizona (second time), Oregon and
Nevada -- this despite drug czar Barry McCaffrey and the rest of the drug
war establishment swearing that this was tantamount to legalizing heroin.
The people are perfectly capable of deciding that relieving the suffering
of the dying is not the same as supporting the Medellin cartel.

Notice, too, that Jesse "the Governor" Ventura, the crackerjack populist
surprise in Minnesota, was elected in large part by young people who like
his libertarian straight talk on drugs.

Of course, our normal politicians are frozen on this issue. Liberals have
been drug-baited for so long that they live in terror of the dread
accusation "soft on drugs." And the law-'n'-order conservatives have been
making hay at the polls with this cheap scare stuff for so long that
they're hooked on it. Fortunately, the libertarian wing of the right has
made uncommon sense on the issue all along, and even establishment
conservatives like William F. Buckley are open to reasonable discussion.
There's a real chance here for conservatives to seize an important issue
and do major public service at the same time.

Just to give you an idea how petrified the libs are on this issue, note
President Clinton's performance -- he fired Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders
not for advocating legalization of drugs but for suggesting that it should
be studied! And he stopped Donna Shalala, secretary of health and human
services, from implementing a clean-needle program -- an obviously sensible
public health measure.

The liveliest recent polemic on the subject is Mike Gray's book "Drug
Crazy: How We Got Into This Mess & How We Can Get Out of It." Gray has some
horrifying reports on how deeply the drug war has corrupted law enforcement
across the country. He also makes a strong case that the war on drugs is
just as disastrous a failure as was Prohibition, with exactly the same
consequences in the growth of enormous criminal empires.

However, it may be that debating legalization will simply turn out to be
polarizing and futile while it takes the focus off the need to at least
reform drug regulation. For starters, we could consider decriminalizing
marijuana, rethinking the mandatory minimum sentences that put small-time
users in prison for years while leaving major dealers untouched. Another
idiotic injustice that needs to be addressed immediately is the disparity
in sentencing between crack cocaine -- mostly used by inner-city blacks
because of its cheap street price -- and the powder cocaine favored by
wealthy whites. Same drug, gross inequity in sentencing.

In-prison drug treatment programs make far more sense than the usual litany
of more money, more cops, more prisons, longer sentences, etc. Well short
of legalization, any fool can see how we could spend anti-drug money more
effectively and fairly. That's a mandatory minimum in itself.

Our poor frozen political establishment does in fact replicate Prohibition.
President Hoover appointed a commission to study Prohibition back in 1929,
and after 19 months of labor, the commission reported that it was a
disaster area -- and recommended no changes. A columnist known as F.P.A.
summarized the finding in doggerel:

Prohibition is an awful flop.

We like it.

It can't stop what it's meant to stop.

We like it.

It's left a trail of graft and slime.

It's filled our land with vice and crime.

It don't prohibit worth a dime.

Nevertheless, we're for it.

Time for new tactics and strategy, and anyone who says so is not soft on
drugs but strong on common sense.

You may write to Molly Ivins at 1005 Congress Ave., Suite 920, Austin, TX
78701 or via email at mollyivins@star-telegram.com.

Checked-by: Mike Gogulski