A WAR WORTH WAGING

One Way to Stop a War Is to Surrender.

Former N.C. Chief Justice Burley B. Mitchell Jr. on Monday suggested
decriminalization as an answer to a national war on drugs that has
proved to be "an utter failure, a total failure."

Mitchell, North Carolina's top judge from 1995 to 1999, was speaking
at a forum addressing the prison crisis. It would relieve
overcrowding and save money if the state stopped locking up so many
people for drug-related offenses, he said.

Yes, and the same would be true if other crimes were decriminalized, too.

The arguments for drug legalization are familiar: Law-enforcement
strategies have just created large, violent and powerful criminal
networks; as with prohibition of alcoholic beverages, efforts to
curtail popular activities are doomed to fail; and what's the harm in
responsible recreational drug use, anyway?

Mitchell is no bleeding-heart liberal. As a district attorney, he won
convictions and 10-year prison sentences against college kids caught
with an ounce of marijuana, he said in a phone interview Tuesday. He
thinks it's time to find other ways to deal with what he says is more
of a medical than a criminal problem.

But he admitted he hasn't thought through the details. Would
decriminalization mean simply to stop punishing minor drug offenses
like possession of small amounts of marijuana or cocaine? If so,
would that still leave existing illegal drug networks in place?

How about the creation of a legal drug distribution system? Just pick
up your cocaine at the local drugstore. But, when pharmaceutical
products are strictly regulated and tested for years before they
reach the marketplace -- and manufacturers can face
multimillion-dollar lawsuits for mistakes -- the notion of legally
available, government-approved heroin seems far-fetched. As for
marijuana, the legal troubles of the tobacco industry should warn off
any legitimate business that would think about selling pot.

Would the list of decriminalized drugs include methamphetamine, crack
cocaine, ecstasy and LSD? If not -- and common sense would dictate
not -- wouldn't there still be an illicit market for those commodities?

The fact is, such drugs aren't harmless. All can induce destructive
behavior, cause adverse health effects and damage families.

The cost of trying to contain drug abuse is high, and the resources
haven't been used effectively. More money should be spent on
treatment. Fewer people should be imprisoned, and in many cases
prison sentences should be shorter with a greater focus on rehabilitation.

But illegal drugs are so closely associated with other criminal
behaviors that their use and abuse can't be accepted in our society.
The answer to crime isn't to announce that it isn't crime anymore; it
is to implement effective strategies to deter dangerous behaviors and
to make better alternatives available.

Former Justice Mitchell no doubt is frustrated by so many setbacks in
the war against drugs. But surrender is the ultimate setback. If
drugs are harmful to society now, toleration will only worsen the problem.