Guest Opinion

WE'VE LOST WAR ON DRUGS; LET'S FIND A NEW SOLUTION

By Richard McLean

We've been fighting a "war on drugs" since at least 1968, when Nixon coined
the phrase during the election campaign that year. The effort was escalated
substantially in 1982. We've spent an enormous amount of federal money
since then, and lots more at the state and local level. The federal budget
for 1997 is $15.2 billion, and President Clinton proposes to spend somewhat
more in 1998.

Every police department in the country, every sheriff's office, every
district attorney's office, every public defenders' office, every probation
department and every jail and prison authority employs people and spends
funds which would not be necessary but for the fighting of this "war." It
is a major industry.

Surely the taxpayer is entitled to know the status of the war. Are we
winning it? Can it be won?

If not, why not, and what do we do then?

There is no argument about the harm drugs do. Or alcohol, for that matter.
Most people would agree that the nation would be better off had Prohibition
been successful. But it wasn't, and that was that. We recognized nearly 70
years ago that the harm done by prohibition greatly exceeded the benefit.
Is the same true of drugs? We need to face this issue and face it squarely.

The naked Emperor comes to mind. Remember? Everyone knew the Emperor had no
clothes, but since he was the Emperor, no one was willing to talk about it.
Since I became a judge in 1981, I have talked to hundreds of people about
the war on drugs, and not one has seriously argued that we can win it. But
hardly anyone has been willing to publicly say we can't win it.

In a November panel discussion before a group of lawyers, judges and law
students, a Boulder County deputy district attorney pointed out no one
expects to wipe out burglary. So why, he argued, should we expect to "win"
the war on drugs? He said we can hardly surrender, and therefore must stay
the course indefinitely, if necessary. He may have a point. But whether
or not it is valid needs to be examined by the citizens. We can't expect
the politicians to do it because they are all terrified of being labeled
"soft on crime," even when they know full well that isn't true.

If we can't win this war, but are merely following a "containment" policy,
is it worth the billions and billions of dollars that could be put to
better use? As Federal Senior Judge John Kane wrote recently, "The war on
drugs has been lost and never was winnable."

The reason is a matter of basic economics. In the auspicious year 1776,
Adam Smith published his "Wealth of Nations." In it, he pointed out the
inexorable relationship between supply and demand. If the supply of a thing
is restricted while the demand remains the same, the price of it goes up.
When the price goes up, so do the profits, thus attracting others into the
business of supplying it. That is why every judge and every police officer
knows that when a drug dealer is sent to prison, there is someone else very
willing to take his place. That is why politicians in Mexico and Colombia
argue the real problem is the demand in the United States, not the
production in their countries. If demand is there, it will be met one way
or another.

Consider this: It costs about $100 to produce a kilogram of cocaine. Its
street value is somewhere between $14,000 and $30,000. Federal and foreign
agents seize 200 to 300 tons of it a year, which is about onethird the
production. It is light, compact and easy to smuggle. Marijuana can be
grown just about anywhere.

Consider also the presence of drugs in the prisons. One would think that
when we send some druggie to the slammer for a few years, the least we can
expect from the annual $29,000 or so we spend to keep him there would be
that when he gets out, he will no longer be addicted, simply because he
can't use drugs in prison. Not so.

Drug use is common in every prison in the country. If we can't keep drugs
out of prisons, how will we keep them out of the free society? Conclusion:
We will never, no matter how much we spend, solve the drug problem by
focusing primarily on catching the dealers, rather than on our own desire
for their goods.

What can be done? Once we recognize the war cannot be won, we can explore
the alternatives. Perhaps the government should take over the supply of
drugs (thus depriving the crime lords of the profits), decriminalize their
use, tax their sale and treat addiction as a medical problem. Perhaps some
drugs should be legalized and others not. Perhaps we should spend most of
our interdiction money on education and treatment instead. These and other
plans can be discussed.

Public recognition of the facts is the first step. The gutless politicians
then can follow, and may "courageously" begin a discussion. Then we can get
on with finding a solution.