CAN ANYBODY TELL US WHAT VICTORY MEANS IN THIS LONGEST WAR?

July 12 - One should be suspicious, I suppose, whenever there is agreement
between Newton Leroy Gingrich, Republican speaker of the House of
Representatives, and William Jefferson Clinton, Democratic president of the
United States of America.

They joined for a trip to Atlanta last week to announce yet another phase
of the War on Drugs, this time a propaganda campaign.

Meanwhile, various military campaigns are in full operation, including
chemical warfare - herbicide bombs for farms in South America - and more
traditional means, such as the deployment of infantry along the southern
border to kill sheep herders.

The new propaganda barrage will involve hard-hitting paid advertisements,
aimed at discouraging drug use among youth, and will cost millions, perhaps
billions.

Now I'm not going to be the one to question the efficacy of advertising,
since I sell the stuff in one of my enterprises and certainly benefit from
it in other pursuits.

But when it comes to drug usage, advertising, along with the media in
general, presents a mixed message.

On one hand, teenagers and the rest of us see myriad messages telling us to
take drugs to feel better: Tylenol for that headache, Advil for that sore
back, Prozac for that frazzled feeling, Viagra for those male occasions
when the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.

On the other, there will be the latest propaganda campaign from the Drug
Czar, telling us that it's not right to take something to feel better.

How to tell the proper from improper substances? Kids are supposed to trust
the government to know the difference, I guess - and if they believe
everything the government tells them, then our public schools are every bit
as bad as the critics say.

But for the sake of argument, let us suppose that this propaganda barrage
succeeds and that we have a "DrugFree America'' where cannabis, crank, coca
compounds, poppy extracts and the like are totally unknown.

What would happen then? Would all the government make-work programs be
terminated? Would the snoops, spies and thugs have to find honest work?
Would prisons close for lack of business? Would the Bill of Rights mean
something again?

Or would the warriors merely turn their attention to new substances, now
socially acceptable, like caffeine and theobromine (a chemical found in
chocolate that may be psychoactive)?

If this sounds unlikely, consider that many currently controlled substances
were once staples of legitimate commerce: The Founding Fathers grew hemp;
heroin was developed and marketed by the same Bayer company that produced
aspirin; cocaine was sold over the counter at dispensaries operated by
mining companies in Colorado a century ago; amphetamines were dispensed by
our own military to keep soldiers alert.

We citizens who get requisitioned to support this War on Drugs ought to ask
"What constitutes victory?'' before even more billions are spent.

In other words, what would have to happen to end this war and begin the
demobilization and consequent return to a limited civilian government,
rather than the big and intrusive urine-sampling one that operates now?

Or is the definition of "victory'' purposely so vague that the Drug
Warriors, after defeating some substances, would be able to turn their guns
toward others, thereby ensuring that they have a permanent slot at the
public trough?

For some reason, I feel confident that these questions will not be answered
by the latest propaganda campaign.

But our political process may be starting to address these and related issues.

Jack Woehr of Golden, a correspondent who has expressed seditious
sentiments much like mine, tried running for office two years ago and wrote
that the state Democratic Party didn't want anything to do with him on
account of his failure to express the politically correct enthusiasm for
the War on Drugs.

But this year, he reported, he easily gained the Democratic nomination for
state Representative from District 62, which stretches from Golden west
across the Great Divide.

He suspects that the party leadership has concluded that it is difficult to
support policies that lead to an 18 percent increase in prison spending and
only 3 percent more for education, and so he was finally welcomed to the fold.

Jack also mentioned that his campaign may be watched closely by every
candidate in Colorado to see whether it's safe to quit lying to voters
about the wonders of the War on Drugs.

But truth in a campaign is a tough road, especially when master politicians
like Clinton and Gingrich can tap the public treasury to promulgate more
deception.

Ed Quillen of Salida (cozine@chaffee.net) is a former newspaper editor
whose column appears Tuesdays and Sundays. His book, "Deep in the Heart of
the Rockies,'' is a collection of past Post columns.

Checked-by: Mike Gogulski