SPEAKOUT: WAR ON DRUGS SHOULD NOT BE ABANDONED

Senior U.S. District Court Judge John Kane ("America in a fix," April 27)
has joined the ranks of those calling for an end to the war against drugs.

The War on Drugs is not an ill-considered flash in the pan. On the contrary
it represents the best efforts of the last seven presidents, as well as
overwhelming bipartisan majorities of Congress over an extended period of time.

Like others in the drug legalization camp, Kane points out that despite
years of drug enforcement efforts and the expenditure of billions of
dollars, illicit drugs still constitute a major problem in America. He
concludes that the drug war is a total failure and that "the states should
regulate sales and decide which activities are criminal and which drugs if
any should be prohibited."

He assumes that these actions would put an end to the massive social
problems related to drug abuse. Yet, any prison warden will tell you that
alcohol lands more people in jail than all other drugs combined. The
legalization of booze that came with the end of Prohibition has not
prevented the violent crime, child abuse, domestic violence, broken
families or the other horrendous social costs attributable to the abuse of
alcohol. Decriminalization of currently illegal drugs can only dramatically
multiply these problems.

If we surrender in the war against drugs and remove the stigma of using
Ecstasy, crack cocaine and methamphetamine, millions of nonusing Americans
will begin to use those drugs.

I would like Kane to ponder some questions: If drugs are legalized, for
whom will they be legalized? Everyone, or just those over 10, or 16 -- or
18? If only for those over 18, would we not still have a vast illegal drug
trade for those under 18?

Methamphetamine and crack cocaine can produce temporary psychosis in sane
people. Otherwise normal people become paranoid, and capable of committing
violent crimes under their influence. Kane might want to be on C-470
surrounded by drivers who just came from Joe's Drug Emporium, but not me.
Would you want your surgeon to have just shot up with a little heroin or
crank before he fixes that ski knee? How about the guy at the controls of
the 737 you are riding in, or your child's school bus driver?

How would legalization work? Would we have drug boutiques springing up in
every strip mall along the Front Range a la Starbucks? Perhaps you could
stop in on your way home from work and smoke a little crack -- maybe shoot
up some crank while you're at it.

I do not mean to imply that all is well with the War on Drugs. Certainly we
should spend more resources on the demand side of the problem. More needs
to be devoted to educating young people about the dangers of drugs, and
more should be spent on mandatory rehabilitation and treatment for addicts.
In the long run, only by reducing the demand for drugs can we begin to
alleviate the social problems that flow from substance abuse.

The work on the supply side, however, must not be abandoned. To capitulate
in the War on Drugs, at either the state or national level, would be a
tragic mistake.

Remember the death of Boulder teen Brittney Chambers awhile back? Her death
should have given us all pause to reflect on the effect of illegal drug use
in our society. Chambers died of an overdose of Ecstasy, the current fad
drug among America's young people.

We must ask ourselves if her parents would feel any better if she had died
as a result of overdosing on legal Ecstasy. I think not.

In my view, decriminalization would greatly multiply the number of lives
wasted and destroyed by drug use. I dare Kane, or anyone else, to prove
otherwise.