THE NEW PROHIBITION

Anthony Dick Cavalier Daily Columnist ONE MORNING during Prohibition in the
1920s, someone snapped a photo of H.L. Mencken sitting down at a table with
a newspaper and an illegal pint of beer. Never bashful, Mencken signed the
photograph, "breakfast in a free state!" and went on drinking his liquid
cheer right up through the repeal of the short-lived ban on booze. He
understood a not-so-subtle truth that the anti-alcohol prohibitionists
didn't and that many modern-day moralists still fail to grasp. Despite all
the social problems, side effects and surly saloons that follow from
alcohol consumption, one thing is clear: No government has the right to
tell a man he can't have a beer with his breakfast.

Although Prohibition is now long dead, the crusading spirit that moved it
remains very much alive in our society. As made apparent by the recent
activities of the Jefferson Area Drug Enforcement Task Force, federal and
state governments continue to interfere with the private lives of their
citizens by pursuing and prosecuting thousands upon thousands of
individuals who choose to buy, sell and use certain prohibited intoxicants.

Our prisons are crowded with droves of non-violent "drug offenders," whose
offense consists of nothing other than pursuing a particular brand of
happiness that legislators officially disfavor. As of 2001, 246,100 people
were in state prisons and 52,782 in federal prisons for drug offenses.
These prisoners endure horrible conditions in jail cells around the
country, serving sentences that span decades. As they are abused by fellow
inmates and abased by sadistic prison guards, their undeserved misery forms
a stain upon the character of our country. Until we release these people
from our prisons and end the government's scandalous war on drugs, none of
us will have the right to boast of the elusive "free state" that Mencken
toasted eighty years ago.

Modern-day prohibitionists argue for drug laws on the dual grounds that
drug users harm both themselves and other members of society. Under close
scrutiny, however, neither of these justifications holds water.

Of course, it is undeniable that drug use, like alcohol consumption,
increases a person's likelihood of harming his fellow citizens.
Statistically speaking, drug users disproportionately neglect their
children, commit violent crimes and display a lack of both personal
responsibility and basic productivity. But if these sorts of side effects
are the truly harmful results of drug use, then these are the things that
should be made illegal, independently of their connection to drugs. All
sorts of activities make a person more likely to harm others -- from
drinking alcohol, to watching violent movies, to driving an SUV -- but to
ban these things outright would utterly destroy all semblances of
individual freedom. If being an irresponsible or unproductive member of
society is really so awful, it should be punished regardless of whether it
is caused by drug use. Similarly, violent crimes and child neglect should
be prosecuted irrespective of how or why they are committed. But if a
person uses drugs without impinging on anyone else's life, there's
absolutely no reason to break down his door and drag him to prison.

As a pathetic last-ditch effort, though, many people maintain the hackneyed
argument that drug prohibition is necessary for the good of drug users
themselves. By accepting this rationale and advocating the punishment of an
adult "for his own good," they assert that legislators can know people's
interests better than people themselves do. This is the basest form of
paternalism. It reduces free human beings to the status of naughty children
who cannot be trusted to manage their own lives. It takes one person's
rigid conception of the good life and imposes it upon the whole of society,
destroying the personal prerogative to self-determination.

Among truly diverse populations, subjective preferences vary so widely that
no crude formula for universal happiness can possibly be derived.
Individuals are best suited to pursue happiness on their own individual
terms, with their own free choice as a guide. As long as they do not
interfere with the life or liberty of anyone else, they should be left
alone. This ensures both a flexible maximization of happiness and a respect
for the dignity and autonomy of every person.

Grinning politicians routinely admit to having used drugs in the past, and
people often joke about all the "youthful indiscretions" on the consciences
of congressmen. Clinton's policy of non-inhalation became a running gag in
political discourse for a few-year-long stretch. This humor should be
sobered with the realization that thousands of young drug users are wasting
their lives away in cold, gray jail cells right now. These people are no
more criminal than many congressmen -- and probably a good deal less.