ENDING THE WAR ON DRUGS WITH DECRIMINALIZATION?

Before terrorism became our national obsession, illegal drugs were the
United States' all-consuming concern. Starting with the end of the
counterculture of the '60s, government declared a war on drugs, and
stringent legislation was adopted in an attempt to stamp out their use. The
country has employed drug czars and DARE to determine the best way to
persuade our young people not to use drugs.

Long ago, marijuana was the main concern of parents when it came to drug
use. Specialists, mostly law-enforcement officers, called marijuana "the
gateway drug," the one most regular users started before graduating into
crack, cocaine, or heroin. But soon came methamphetamine, which, unlike
cocaine or heroin, is home-grown.

Unlike marijuana, you don't have to wait for several months to harvest your
product. Anyone desperate and crooked enough could manufacture meth - all
you have to be is a gambler willing to risk fire or explosion in exchange
for the pleasure of making money. Producing methamphetamine has become
popular in all parts of the country, including the Midwest.

Initially, drug use was believed to be a fleeting habit rich kids got into
when they were young and rebellious, one they could easily kick as they
matured into respectable members of society. Like alcohol and smoking, some
movies glorified the habit on the screen.

By the 1980s, drug distribution took a different turn, as did drug use.
Gangs formed in many urban areas for the sole purpose of drug distribution.
Such gangs fought to protect their turf in order to gain a monopoly and
maximize profits. Inner-city youths waged a war of attrition on each other
to gain territory. Pimping and drug distribution became the most profitable
businesses in America ghettoes. Crime became widespread nationwide.
Something needed to be done.

Hard-line drug policy had its advent in the 1990s, when the Republicans
took over the Congress. To reduce crime, then-President Clinton proposed
and signed into law a significant increase in law-enforcement funding. In
addition, tougher sentencing guidelines were adopted both at the federal
and state levels, most notably California's three-strikes law. Every state
adopted minimum jail terms for drug-related offenses. Within a few years,
old prisons nationwide were full and new ones under construction. Such a
large proportion of American inmates entered prison for drug-related
offenses that some people suggested decriminalizing certain drugs. The
question is, how can one disapprove of drug culture without criminalizing
drug users?

Proponents of the current drug policy argue that it is wrong to condone a
habit that injures individuals and disrupts society. Obviously, this policy
has not worked and may never work, because it attempts to legislate moral
behavior. Consider that alcohol and cigarettes have similar negative
effects on individual and society; a lot of money is spent to care for sick
smokers and alcoholics. So which of the myriad illegal drugs should be
legalized?

Arguments in favor of decriminalization vary. Decriminalizing drugs would
limit the number of people in prison during the most productive time of
their lives. It may also eliminate the mystique of drugs that attracts many
young people. After all, both alcohol and tobacco are legal and readily
available in the United States, yet not every American drinks alcohol or
smokes. It would also free those individuals who professed to be helped by
marijuana during chemotherapy for cancer. And Oregonians would be happy.

We all know that smoking is bad for us. Yet millions smoke. Cigarette
companies in America have agreed to pay several billion dollars to state
governments in acknowledgment of the cost of treating smoking-related
illnesses. That settlement was possible because the product is legal and
its producers are known. By making it a criminal act to distribute and
purchase drugs, no benefit comes to society. Neither the producers nor
distributors pay tax on a product that is widely consumed. By legalizing
drugs, the government could collect excise and sales taxes on the products,
use the proceeds to treat drug addicts, and find a better way to convince
our young people to just say no.

The most dramatic effect of drug legalization would be in law enforcement
and crime. No one disputes that a sizable percentage of crime in this
country is drug-related. Hundreds of millions of dollars are given to
Colombia each year to disrupt cocaine production and smuggling. The expense
and the danger faced by undercover agents would be a thing of the past.
Gang members no longer would execute each other on our streets for the
privilege to trade in drugs. Thousands of police hours spent to arrest
sellers and buyers would be saved. And finally, many of our young people
would be out of jail. Maybe it is time to start a public debate on drug
decriminalization. What do you think?

Bode Olakanmi is a DI columnist.