EVERYTHING DEPENDS ON YOUR DEFINITION OF 'DRUGS'

The Oct. 4 [1999] guest column by Charles Davis titled "Tough drug sentences
best solution to problem" quietly begs for argument.

Mr. Davis leaves two assumptions unstated, much less examined. The first is
his own posture on "drugs," and the second is his idea of a solution.

A headline in a later edition of the Daily News read: "Drugs show promise,
doctor says." Our dilemma is clear. In our society we have drugs and we
have "drugs."

We are not at war with drugs. Our national drug industry is an economic
elephant, not just in North America but around the world. The drugs they
make are the ones sold over the counter or by prescription at drug stores.
We see and hear their version of this word constantly, and we pay it no more
attention than we do noises about other things we don't want.

But "drugs," now, that's different. We ARE at war against "drugs" -
marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD and a host of other lower profile chemicals
and derivatives. These are substances that are "dangerous" and therefore
illegal.

It's funny how we always know automatically which one we're talking about.

So Mr. Davis opposes "drugs." But it's hard to believe anyone who was in the
military in the early '70's has lived this long in America without using
some kind of drugs or without realizing that we will see more users, abusers
and former users running for office as we age. We cannot continue the
philosophical legerdemain forever, so I propose we reconcile ourselves to a
more enlightened approach or face the prospect of undermining respect for
more useful laws.

This brings us to his second assumption - that dangerous behaviors should be
made illegal, and that illegal behaviors should be punished, this particular
offense deserving special severity.

Why?

Why should it be legal, even Constitutional, to permit the use of one
dangerous substance and not another? What patriot can support the
twenty-first amendment and so badly miss the point that all patriots must
defend - the right of the individual to use intoxicants and harm himself
thereby if he freely chooses?

To me the distinction is sophistry. In a free country we are free to
practice damaging habits or we aren't free at all. Everyone of us makes
choices that ultimately lead to death - through chance, stupidity or
sacrifice - and society should recognize the limits to its power and stop
well short of them when it comes to regulating dangerous pastimes.

There are many of us who see no useful distinction between drugs and "drugs"
under the law. Any society that condones legal (and dangerous) drugs for
everything from hay fever to impotence cannot incarcerate and impoverish
those who prefer illegal "drugs" and maintain the fiction that its laws are
rational. But if "drug abuse" must be a criminal offense, why one so
severe? Why an enforcement policy so sinister, so predatory, so opposed to
the letter and spirit of the Constitution that your property can be seized
and converted to the state's use on the strength of suspicion, alone?

Of course, that's the whole point for many. It's illegal, it doesn't matter
why. Round up the guilty and cage 'em. If they don't stop it, cage 'em
longer. If that doesn't work, I suppose the next step is to put them to
death, but in Texas we do that with drugs. Kind of like controlling
firearms by shooting anyone with a gun.

Many taxpayers are willing to subsidize room and board for people who smoke
pot and can get it as easily in prison as they can on the outside, but I am
not.

Which brings us to Governor Bush. Frankly I doubt the Governor's tough
stance on drugs is the product of his own unfavorable experiences. I
believe the Governor's stance is naked hypocrisy, cynically and
intentionally crafted to curry favor with a block of voters and raise money.
And I LIKE George W. But personally I would rather our governor come out on
the other wing, advocating the decriminalizing of all drugs because he knows
from personal experience the law doesn't work.

As a matter of social policy it is the hypocrisy that must be confronted,
and maybe the time has come to grant a general amnesty to our pot-smoking,
coke-snorting countrymen and remind detractors that they use drugs, too, and
so stand on the same side of the wall.

The personal judgements of any single group will always oppose something in
somebody, but few of these prejudices deserve to be enshrined in the law in
a free society. I can accept a social covenant against murder. I can't
accept a social covenant that allows the state to throw you in jail and
seize your assets because a stranger left a roach in your car's ashtray. If
this is the kind of society we want, how 'bout we lighten up on all this
"beacon of freedom" crap and start thinking about how many other things in
our society can be treated the exact same way for the exact same reasons.

No, I am not persuaded. I believe both sides should have their markets and
remedies. If I drink in my own home and otherwise cause no trouble, it's
none of your business. Same with consuming any other substance, including
lighter fluid. If I drink so much liquor that it becomes a problem, I
should be free to try everything from shock therapy to meditation to solve
it.

If jail is the answer for me, I can get there too easily already.