INDICTING THE WAR ON DRUGS

James Madison once said, "I believe there are more instances of the
abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments
of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." This, my friends,
is a good way to describe the toll the war on drugs has taken.

The war on drugs was started by Richard Nixon, who promised prior to his
election that he would be our law-and-order president. But neither law nor
order had much meaning to Nixon, other than it was a good lie to tell the
people who'd vote him into office. He ended his presidency in ignominy and
shame. He broke the laws he'd promised to uphold and lost any and all
credibility when it came to law and order.

Such has been the fate of the war on drugs. The latest affront is operations
"Pipe Dreams and Headhunter," two moronic attempts by a law enforcement
agency (the DEA under the Justice Department) to sound like they have a clue
about drug use. These two operations target owners and operators of head
shops. Yes, head shops. They are not targeting violent dealers or prolific
traffickers, they are basically chasing a legless man.

Stationary targets are the easiest to hit. And marijuana users are far
easier to bust, because there are so many of them, and because they aren't
usually the most sophisticated users and often do not take great pains to
hide their casual use of marijuana. They are teen-agers, doctors, lawyers,
librarians, your mom, anyone really. It's estimated that 72 million
Americans have at least tried pot once. And the number increases steadily
each year.

As a result of the 50 arrests resulting from the DEA stings on head shops,
the Bush administration is pounding its chest as if it's cured heroin use,
which is far from reality. Targeting head shops is like pissing in wind. You
aren't doing anything to stem the tide of drugs headed into the country or
to satisfy the demand of the consumer, whether it is a college student
wishing to unwind after midterms or a hardcore methamphetamine addict.

Punitive actions are what make the U.S. drug policy so ineffective. There is
a refusal of lawmakers to see the drug problem as more than a simplified
moral one. What makes this even more problematic is that the concept of
morality is so subjective. What about the Native Americans who consider
peyote-eating an important part of their spirituality? John Ashcroft's
morality is certainly at odds with this. And yet, the practice in question,
to its Native-American practitioners, is a holy act.

Our drug war also fails in terms of harm reduction. We have few needle
exchanges or methadone programs; where they do exist, they are overtaxed.
Our jails are clogged with people (mostly African Americans) who have been
put there on petty drug offenses designed as deterrents, which aren't
working.

That drug laws unfairly target minorities, particularly African Americans
and the Latino/a populations, even though white folks use more drugs than
either, is a reality. A hugely disproportionate portion of African-American
men have been jailed, simply because mandatory minimums for drug offenses
have been created, taking power away from judges to form sentences due to
circumstances, etc. Many police departments use racial profiling, whether
they admit it or not, to stop cars on the highways and byways of America, in
the hopes that they will come upon the next big bust.

As it exists now, the war on drugs is an ugly cancer on America. It allows
for all sorts of ancillary social ills other than just the terrible
consequences of drug abuse itself. Because we have very few needle exchange
programs, addicts who use syringes are at greater risk and contract diseases
like AIDS and hepatitis in greater numbers, putting further burdens on our
health-care system.

I could go on.

Simply put, the recent "victories" of the DEA are really a farce. An example
of how far the war on drugs hasn't come, because the DEA can't get rid of
the really big and dangerous problems. Clap your hands now, boys, because
someone, somewhere is dying because you saw their drug addiction as a moral
weakness and not a health problem you could have done something to alleviate
with the right kind of actions.

John Ashcroft really ought to ask himself right now, "What would Jesus do?"
After all, despite the fact that I'm a badly lapsed Catholic, I do recall
something in the bible about "whatever you do to the least, you do to me."
Remember that when they call your number, my friend.