DRUG WAR ANSWERS THE WRONG QUESTIONS

The writer is a State College native with bachelor's degrees in
philosophy and food science. For eight years, he worked in Baltimore
for a Dutch company.

Lately there has been considerable debate over drug issues, including
medical marijuana, the war on drugs, date rape drugs and so forth.
With all of the debate and news stories, there are precious few facts
and little reflection. Advocates of various positions have polarized
public opinion, with anti-drug messages getting far greater time. In
this situation, I'd like to offer a few thoughts, and consider some
questions.

According to Dr. Jeffrey A. Schaler, in "Drugs: Should We Legalize,
Decriminalize, or Deregulate?", there are three points of view:
prohibitionists, public health advocates and liberals or libertarians.
Each makes their claims, each should be considered and each should own up
to facts.

I will try to paraphrase Dr. Schaler's descriptions faithfully, but
recommend that anyone seeking to further explore this issue go to

the library and seek this or any of a number of other unbiased
books.

Prohibitionists argue for strict laws, and rationalize their position
with claims that drugs do harm to the user and others. When confronted
with assertions that a drug like marijuana is harmless, they claim
that it is a "gateway drug" leading to the use of more dangerous drugs.

Gen. Barry McCaffrey, the current drug czar, has lied in his recent
statement that Holland, where marijuana is legal, has higher murder
rates and marijuana use rates than the United States.

The Dutch government was insulted, and asked for a retraction because
of his false statements.

He refused.

We should ask whether prohibition works, whether drugs themselves
cause crime and whether prohibition causes crime (remember Al Capone,
et al.).

Public health advocates regard addiction as a disease, and thus
advocate treatment over punishment. Some support medical marijuana
laws. Baltimore's Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke was the most visible of these
people.

We should ask if drug treatment works, whether medical control would
eradicate the black market and whether court-ordered drug treatment,
being of a moral and often religious nature, violates First Amendment
rights.

In the liberal and libertarian perspectives (re: psychiatrist
Thomas

Szasz and economist Milton Friedman), drug use is seen as a behavior
based on personal values.

Some say it is caused by environment, that drugs themselves do not
cause crime and that, according to Schaler, "drug users need not be
treated as 'barbarians at the gate' requiring exceptions to the
constitutional rule of law."

They believe that free-market trade would reduce crime.

We should consider if there will be a substantial increase in usage if
drugs are legalized, whether increased use would lead to greater
threats to freedom and what effects this might have on relations with
prohibitionist countries.

I think it is silly that we have a working example in Holland that
is

studiously ignored by our government. They have lower drug usage
rates, lower murder rates and lower costs of enforcement. Furthermore,
people there are compromising and solving real problems.

Isn't that what America

is about?

The drug war makes our country look more like Stalinist Russia than
the United States.

Let's have a real dialogue, and then make our representatives in
government listen and lead for a change.

Checked-by: Patrick Henry