Reading George Will's "Cigarette war a government success" made me wonder:
Would Will be willing to draw any conclusions on the government's other
"war" on the personal use of psychoactive substances?

I'm speaking of the so-called "war on drugs." It is interesting to note the
different approaches of these two wars and then to compare their relative
success (or lack thereof).

Smoking has declined significantly as a result of the consistent public
relations campaign that reveals the addictive and destructive nature of
tobacco. This decline has been accomplished without law enforcement
authorities, without use of draconian prison sentences and without
widespread use of civil forfeiture, no-knock searches, forced urinalysis or
any of the other invasive procedures that are the hallmark of the war on
drugs. It has been accomplished by the simple approach of educating the
public, not by making criminals of nicotine addicts.

In contrast, the war on drugs places almost complete emphasis on the use of
law enforcement. Illegal drug users are criminals. They are demonized by
the media, harassed, arrested and imprisoned by the government and shunned
by society. The "successes" of this war are insignificant, compared to the
cigarette war. Drugs are cheaper and more available now than ever before.
Our prisons are full to overflowing with "drug criminals," while law
enforcement lacks the resources to pursue dangerous criminals. Our inner
cities are war zones. AIDS is spreading among intravenous drug users. More
powerful and dangerous substances (such as crack and methamphetamine) have
become commonplace.

What is it about tobacco use, which sends some 400,000 Americans to an
early grave each year, that is substantially different from marijuana,
cocaine or heroin use? Why is it that we attack one as a public health
problem and the others as law enforcement problems? And if the public
health approach is clearly the more successful, why don't we use it for all
substances.

Steve Cochran
Austin, TX 78703