U.S. DRUG POLICY PLOT THICKENS AFTER DA'S DUI

Some people probably think I just go looking for trouble, but I swear this
one just fell in my lap. The day after I submitted my latest column on the
Tulia drug bust a couple weeks back, I saw in this paper that Swisher
County District Attorney Terry McEachern failed a field sobriety test in
New Mexico.

Seems Mr. McEachern had between one and three drinks with his dinner and a
Valium for dessert, then navigated his Jeep on down the road badly enough
to be apprehended.

I'm sure some people are giving Mr. McEachern the horse laugh over this
one. I mean, think about it: The man commissioned to enforce our laws
against drug abuse is, like Shakespeare's engineer, hoist on his own
petard, as it were. This must be pretty funny to some.

But it isn't funny to me. Mr. McEachern has graphically illustrated two of
the things that are wrong with our current policy on drug abuse.

The first is the distinction between legal and illegal drugs. This
distinction is artificial. Someone who uses any drug responsibly - e.g. in
the privacy of his home - ought not suffer legal penalties for doing so.
Someone who uses any drug irresponsibly - like driving or flying while
blasted - should have to answer to the law on the basis of direct harm done
to society.

Mr. McEachern might lose his license over this episode, but he ought not go
to jail unless he does direct damage to someone else.

The second thing wrong with our war on drugs that this episode reveals to
us is that there should be a distinction between use and abuse. Smoking a
joint in the privacy of one's home should not be considered "drug abuse"
any more than having a glass of wine with dinner. Drinking wine with dinner
and popping a Valium before operating a car ought to be considered as much
an abuse as operating a car under the influence of amphetamines or LSD.

Some might think that Mr. McEachern should resign over this episode, that
his moral authority has been as severely compromised as if he had killed
someone - as he might well have done on the road that night.

But I don't agree with that, either. I don't believe this smear on Mr.
McEachern's character should cost him his job. But I do think it ought to
reorient his thinking.

If the district attorneys of our country are as susceptible to the vices of
chemical dependency as the people they prosecute, I believe it's time we
discarded the law as the solution of last resort for drug abuse and
attacked this problem from another direction. Mr. McEachern could be a
persuasive voice in the effort to bring about this change.

And some people might be quietly celebrating Mr. McEachern's mortification
at having to defend himself from a district attorney in New Mexico every
bit as determined to make an example of him as McEachern was to make an
example of the 46 defendants in his own jurisdiction. Lord knows they would
be justified. Some might even prefer to see Mr. McEachern behind bars for
three or four years - just to savor the poetry in the justice of it.

But I can't agree with that either. Broadening a tragedy does not diminish
it. It's not just that I don't believe Mr. McEachern deserves to be in
jail, it's that I also believe everyone else now in jail for simple
possession and use of drugs should not be there.

It isn't easy hewing to a principle here. Those who believe all "druggies"
should be thrown in the slammer until they die are honor-bound to support
the same draconian penalty for Mr. McEachern. Those of us who believe jail
is not a proper answer for run-of-the-mill drug abusers are likewise
honor-bound to reject that penalty for Mr. McEachern.

No one should expect that prison will help Mr. McEachern. But neither
should we expect prison to help anyone else similarly situate.

Mr. McEachern has unwittingly involved himself in a predicament that could
be a transcendent moment for himself and others touched by addiction.

He can rationalize and deny and defend his behavior, hire a good lawyer and
do his best to beat the rap, and fight this charge all the way to the
Supreme Court.

Or he can resign his office and do his penance in the privacy of his home
and community.

Or he can accept his humanity and stand up for the idea that all of us
should forgive frailty in each other without locking people away until they
are stronger.

I have hope it will be No. 3.