THE WAR ON PHELPS: A LEGAL DISTRACTION

As Somewhat Shamed Swimmer Continues To Make Splashes, The War On
Drugs Continues Unsuccessfully

I'm not sure if USA Swimming's impotent three-month suspension of
Michael Phelps is worse than the media's hysteria over
'the bong
incident,' but one thing is certain: Phelps is the latest scapegoat in
the war on drugs. Drug-related issues are a perennial scare tactic
because they stir voter emotions and maintain the press's ratings. The
outrage triggered by the infamous bong photo proves America's faux war
on drugs still exists.

First of all, I want to know who would let Phelps take a hit off their
bong. Phelps possesses the lung capacity of 10 opera singers. I
wouldn't let him anywhere near my hypothetical stash - he could inhale
all of it in one breath. The only thing America learned from this
debacle was why the Olympic swimmer eats 12,000 calories per day - he
has the munchies.

If USA Swimming wants Phelps to stop smoking weed, they shouldn't
provide him with more free time. Additionally, if Phelps toked during
the Olympics, he shouldn't be forced to forfeit his eight gold metals.
Instead we should give him a ninth metal. Unless a bag of Funyuns is
strategically placed at the end of a pool, marijuana is not a
performance-enhancing drug.

Every year, prison populations grow exponentially but drugs remain on
the streets and the press crucifies another semi-celebrity. Draconian
penalties for first-time drug offenders, such as the Rockefeller Laws,
are the result of over-hyped media coverage and politicians attempting
to be tough on crime. Flooding the prison system with first-time
offenders devours state and federal funds and does nothing to rid the
nation of illegal drugs.

Focusing on the hazards of illegal drugs diverts attention from the
equally dangerous legal drugs (alcohol, nicotine, anti-depressants),
which are well integrated into the culture and the economy and are
represented by powerful special interests groups in Washington. If
stoners turned off the Cartoon Network long enough to form a political
action committee, marijuana would be legal in a heartbeat.

From Tijuana to Baltimore, urban communities on both sides of the Rio
Grande have been plunged into a brutal war zone. According to the Wall
Street Journal, warring drug cartels killed close to 6,000 people in
2008. Even as the body count rises, American presidents continue the
same failed policies by declaring war on drugs. Most drug-related
crime is tied to the high cost of obtaining drugs and to the criminal
black market, which is created by the government's prohibition of narcotics.

The sole accomplishment of the war on drugs is the expansion of
federal authority. Sweeping reductions in civil rights, such as the
right to privacy and due process, are deemed acceptable if they help
win the war on drugs. For example, decisions handed down by the
Supreme Court sanctioned the use of anonymous informants (Illinois v.
Gates, 1983) and increased the federal government's ability to
regulate the use of medicinal marijuana (Gonzales v. Raich, 2005).

Typical media coverage involving drug-related crime fails to mention
how the illegality of drug commodities increases the price of the
substance, thus promoting the cartel aspect of the trade. The public
would possess a better understanding of drug abuse and would be more
critical of drug-enforcement laws if the media discussed how the
illegality of narcotics heightened violence in drug-infested
neighborhoods.

Declaring war on drugs turns friends and family members into the
enemy, militarizes U.S. drug policy and reroutes funds away from
tangible solutions. Demanding social justice for those hit hardest -
the impoverished and those living in the other America - is not enough
to bridge the chasm created by the war on drugs. As long as Phelps is
the excuse for waging an unwinnable war, inner-city neighborhoods will
decay to the point of inhabitability.