RAVENEL'S NEW VERSE FOR DRUG-POLICY SONG STILL STRIKES SOUR NOTE

In the many years I have spent as a law enforcement officer, I don't
recall ever consciously using the term "Drug War" as my appellation
for the societal problem of substance abuse. I may have used the term
as a quote, giving in to the reality that it is so widely misused that
if I stopped to discuss the term, I would deviate from the main point
of my discussion.

I do not know the genesis of the use of the term, but I feel certain
it was a misguided law enforcement official trying to "sell" some law
enforcement program, or a politician. Thomas Ravenel's siren song of
legalization or de-criminalization of drugs prompts me to address that
issue. His is an old song with merely a new verse, or is it simply a
re-arranging of the lyrics by a new singer?

To begin with, substance abuse is a demand issue that is mostly
impacted by the degree of acceptance by society. This is true whether
you are talking about illegal drugs, alcohol, prescription drugs or
nicotine. By the way, it is also true concerning anything that a
person allows to be their master.

I believe that things as widely different as gambling, sex or even
victimization are the same when those things reach a level where the
person loses control. I believe that many of these maladies may be
medical problems, i.e. addiction. However, they almost all require an
individual to make a choice to begin.

Obviously, those who become addicted as the result of medical
treatment, pain or youth, may present some exceptions related to
whether a person can be said to be able to make a choice. We have
become quite adept at rationalizing that "choice" away or otherwise
redirecting the fault, but that is ... crap.

Prohibition was a failure. It points to a universal truth. Law
enforcement and enforcement of laws cannot solve societal problems.
Society can exist and thrive only where the overwhelming majority of
that society voluntarily complies with the laws that society enacts,
as well as the mores and values that promote society in the most
positive fashion. Prohibition laws failed because society did not
support them. It is ironic that proponents of legalizing drugs point
to failure of the laws prohibiting alcohol in the 1920s to support
their case.

Well, let's look at how the repeal of the laws "improved" the
situation. Alcohol, according to most, is a major factor in medical
problems, traffic accidents, violent crime, domestic violence and a
myriad of other societal problems. What we generally see in jail are
multiple substance abusers: alcohol in combination of other drugs.

Alcohol is one of the most abused drugs in our society, and alcohol
use among teenagers is a serious problem. We also got rid of gangs
(organized crime, Murder, Inc.) that benefited from prohibition too,
right? The Justice Department just announced the arrest of hundreds of
organized crime figures -- members of the Gambino, Genovese, Lucchese,
Colombo and Bonanno families.

No one can objectively deny that alcohol abuse must be treated as an
addiction, but neither can one deny that strict laws and enforcement
of those laws are important in addressing the problem. A critical
point to remember is that the biggest impact on reducing drunk driving
and traffic fatalities and injuries attributed to alcohol is that
groups like Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) have done much to
bring attention to the problem, to strengthen drunk driving laws and
their enforcement and to diminish societal acceptance of drunk driving.

The fact is legalization of alcohol did not eliminate all the problems
with that drug. One other note: Our ability to detect alcohol levels
in drivers far exceeds our ability to readily detect other drugs. So I
am not persuaded that illegal drugs are not involved in traffic accidents.

Legalizing drugs that are currently abused assumes that drug dealers
will just shrug their shoulders and state that "it was good while it
lasted, but I guess we'll have to get an honest job now." That didn't
happen when the prohibition laws were repealed, and it won't happen if
you eliminate laws against drugs.

Like all good marketers, drug dealers are always looking for ways to
increase business. Stronger drugs, different drugs (designer drugs),
different customers, e.g. appeal to young users (remember the Mickey
Mouse stamps with LSD?). Whatever is legalized, drug dealers will look
for a way to change. Organized crime didn't give up after prohibition;
they just found another way to conduct the same business.

Another issue is the seldom-discussed problem of the abuse of
prescription drugs. This problem is far more subtle than the abuse of
illegal drugs but often manifests itself in some of the same ways,
i.e., loss of family, job, violence, poverty, etc. The issues of the
legalization of drugs is a "straw man" argument, in the same sense
that guns are with respect to violence.

The "guns" issue is, "Why do people resort to violence to deal with
issues? Guns are the "straw man" that people love to debate. That
argument is a lot easier than the real issues involved with violence.
In the same vein, legalization makes a convenient, simple-minded
argument that does not address the underlying issue of why people use
and abuse substances they know are bad for them.

Law enforcement is often seen as all things to all people with all
problems. We are not. We cannot solve all of society's problems and we
become convenient targets for society's failure to address problems.
That there are misguided individuals who are, or have been, police
officers should not be surprising. Police officers are like any group.
They are of many persuasions, opinions and beliefs. Contrary to the
intuitive belief that all police officers are conservative for
example, there are many liberals, and even some libertarians.

We are too quick to suggest that if there is a problem, pass a law (or
throw money at it, or both) and we will solve it. In fact, I am
increasingly concerned with the extent to which laws, ordinances and
regulations, on every level, are becoming more intrusive in our lives.
Laws cannot protect us from every potential danger or threat.

We may wake up one day and find ourselves suffocating from all the
laws, but legalizing or decriminalizing dangerous drugs is not the
answer. I am not persuaded by former or current police officers
regardless of experience or rank (a former Miami police chief was in
favor of legalization, to some extent), groups like the National
Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, or recent converts like
Mr. Ravenel, that legalization is a good idea.

As to the so-called "medical marijuana" issue, I am not a physician. I
would think, however, that marijuana is not so unique as a "medicine"
that there are not alternatives.

But in the final analysis, if competent studies showed that there were
medicinal uses for marijuana, I would not be opposed to physicians
having that as an available prescription option.

Physicians today prescribe all manner of dangerous drugs, and while
there is significant abuse of some of those drugs, the greater good of
those drugs should prevail. The medical/scientific community is where
the issue of the use of marijuana as a medicine should be resolved, as
it is with other drugs. We have thus resolved the use of opiates as
treatment, as an example.

This is not a new song. This is a pig with lipstick, and a pig with
lipstick is still a pig.

I wish I had been the first to say that. It is so visual.