THE WAR ON DRUGS IS NOT A WAR ON TERROR

My Turn

I view the Drug Enforcement Administration and the so-called "Drug War" the
way comedian Mitch Hedburg views a human pyramid - as completely
unnecessary. It does not need to exist.

"But wait," you say, "don't all people who use drugs support terrorism?
Isn't the DEA simply trying to protect us from dangerous criminal
organizations like al-Qaeda?"

The answer is no. The DEA is trying to protect us from medical marijuana
growers.

On Jan. 31, author and activist Ed Rosenthal was convicted of marijuana
cultivation and conspiracy. Because of mandatory sentencing laws, he faces
five years in prison.

His crime? As a duly appointed officer by the state of California, Rosenthal
grew marijuana for patients who suffer from AIDS and cancer. He did this
because of Proposition 215, which allows marijuana to be grown for medical
use. More Californians voted for Prop 215 than they did for Bill Clinton's
re-election.

Not only was Rosenthal's operation seized and ceased, the federal government
confiscated the medical records of all registered patients in Rosenthal's
care. This move was meant to intimidate sick and dying people into silence.

Now I have to ask: Who are the real terrorists?

I can believe that production and consumption of opiates may fund terrorism.
Afghanistan produces large amounts of opium. However, I do not see how
denying dying people their medication will help us fight the war on
terrorism. After all, morphine is an opiate, but its use is legal with a
prescription.

Our society is waging is a war on culture, not a war on drugs. It is a
tremendous waste of time, money and resources. Drug laws are ultimately
detrimental to solving the problems they are intended to solve. By
advocating criminal penalties, they substitute deterrence for prevention.
There is no law in the world that will stop an addict from smoking crack or
shooting heroin.

Who's winning this drug war? The drugs are, apparently.

Medicinal marijuana users are easy to bust, because what they do is entirely
legal, according to state laws. Republicans are supposedly in favor of
states' rights. Bush even said he believes any decisions on medicinal
marijuana should be left up to local communities. How can our government
justify its position?

Simple - we don't want to send the wrong message to our kids.

That, in the words of Democratic U.S. Sen. Tom Daschle, is why we can
justify punishing people who legally grow marijuana. We have to do it for
the children.

That is why this war is being taken to ridiculous levels. It's so geared
towards scaring children that it's become childish. People still cling to
these trite slogans and notions: "Drugs ruin dreams and end lives,"
"Installing ceramic tiles is my anti-drug," "Why do you think they call it
dope?"

People still justify everything by protecting children. Protect children
from what? A chemo patient who has to smoke pot, because his therapy makes
him so nauseous he can't keep his food down? A 58-year-old author who was
enforcing the law?

Maybe we're sending children the message that state and local laws are
irrelevant, and they don't have to obey them. Maybe we're sending them the
message that our government is mindless and cruel to its citizens. Or maybe
they're just kids, and we should leave them alone before we suffocate them
with our protection, like a gentle oaf that pets a mouse to death.

We've taken this crusade too far. If this is our war, then we should be
embarrassed. We've lost. Miserably. It's time for the government to stop
dictating to us what is right and wrong, good and evil. The people, not the
politicians, should determine that.

I think the government's job is to provide for the safety, health and
security of its citizens, because the citizens are the government. If one of
us has a health problem, like a substance addiction, the proper response
should be medical, not federal.

Bush proposed new funding to treat 300,000 addicts in his State of the Union
address. He also proposed a volunteer mentor program for children
(naturally) whose parents are in prison.

Of course he didn't mention the correlation between the thousands of adults
imprisoned on nonviolent drug offenses and the disintegration of the family
unit. The president could save money both ways: He should pardon all
criminals convicted of nonviolent drug offenses. That would ease
overcrowding in state prisons and would reunite parents and children
separated because of the "drug war." It would be an act that honors states'
rights and treats substance abusers as citizens and not criminals. That's
what I'd call "compassionate conservatism," in a nutshell.

Then we can get back to fighting the real war on terror. Or is the
government as concerned with catching terrorists as it is with maintaining
the status quo?

Dan Whisenhunt is a junior in the College of Communication and Information
Sciences.