WAVING BANNER OF FAILED DRUG WAR

The U.S. government has approved a return to anti-drug flights over
Colombia. Those flights were suspended two years ago after a Peruvian
fighter mistakenly shot down a plane, killing missionary Veronica Bowers
and her infant daughter.

The mistake was blamed on a breakdown in procedures and a lack of
communication between U.S. operatives and the Peruvian air force. Those
problems have been solved, according to government sources in the United
States. However, the flights will not resume over Peru because of a lack of
planes and radar in that South American country.

The Bowerses were innocent victims of the war on drugs. They weren't the
first and, tragically, they won't be the last. The government's misguided
mission to keep Americans from voluntarily putting things into their bodies
that aren't good for them claims innocent victims every day.

Last year, the Office of National Drug Control Policy spent millions of
dollars on an ad campaign that attempted to blame those deaths on drug
users in the United States by linking the war on drugs to the war on
terrorism. Those ads ignored the simple economics of market forces.

Any time a product or activity is prohibited by law, a black market for it
springs up. After all, many people aren't going to give up something they
desire simply because it's illegal; by hook or by crook they'll find a way
to obtain it and they'll pay whatever the going price is. If that price
becomes too much to bear, customers will find an alternative if they can.

Of course, those who have become addicted to certain drugs have fewer
options as long as they refuse treatment.

On the supply side of the equation, because providers must operate below
the radar of law enforcement, their costs of doing business are higher.
They move their product in small quantities, sometimes bribe officials and
they must protect their markets themselves since they cannot turn to
government for that support. All of this increases suppliers' costs above
what they would be if they operated in the open. Profits must be high
enough to pay these costs and offset the possibility of getting caught and
sent to prison.

It's these high profits that make dealing drugs so attractive to organized
criminals of all types. These people will go to any length to protect their
livelihoods. This goes a long way toward explaining the violence associated
with the drug trade -- individuals and gangs are protecting their turf.

Unfortunately, criminals don't often worry about the collateral damage of
their turf wars. The innocent bystanders killed and injured in these
battles for market control are also victims of the drug war.

The U.S. government's war on drugs has been anything but successful.
According to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse released a year
ago, drug use among people under 26 was on the rise. The study found no
significant change in drug use among Americans older than 26. We can't help
but believe that at least a portion of drug use is the lure of forbidden
fruits.

We're not naive enough to think that decriminalizing drugs would solve all
the problems associated with the drug war -- in this country or in the
countries that produce drugs. We do, however, believe the war on drugs is a
waste of resources, especially in a time when government spending is
climbing. That money and manpower could be put to better use elsewhere in
society.

We're also hard-pressed to see where it's the government's responsibility
to limit people's freedom in such a personal decision as what they do with
their own bodies. Government should limit itself to making sure people's
actions don't infringe on the rights of others.

The government does have a responsibility to prevent drug use by those who
aren't able to take responsibility for their actions, such as minors, but
adults should be allowed to make their own decisions so long as they accept
the consequences.

We wouldn't want to be on the road with someone who had just taken a
mind-altering drug, any more than we want to share the road with a drunken
driver. That's where the government's duty lies -- protecting the innocent.

But if a person wants to smoke marijuana or snort a bit of cocaine in the
privacy of his own home after a hard day's work, is it really the
government's job to stop him?

Thomas Jefferson wrote he "would rather be exposed to the inconveniences
attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of
it." We've tried prohibition; perhaps it's time to try liberty.