Pubdate: Wed, 31 May 2000 Source: Times Record News (TX) Contact: http://www.trnonline.com/opinions2/letters/form.shtml Address: P.O. Box 120, Wichita Falls, TX 76307 BASIC FREEDOMS THE NEXT VICTIM OF THE WAR ON DRUGS IF the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, now is no time for Americans to flinch. In another effort to add firepower to the already substantial federal arsenal aimed at reducing or eliminating the drug trade, Congress is seriously considering passage of a law that would deliver a one-two punch to basic freedom. This desperate measure is called the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, and it has already passed through the Senate unscathed. The House Judiciary Committee is already debating the bill, and a full House vote is expected in June. One provision of the act would institutionalize censorship when it comes to any sort of discussion of controlled substances. Books and magazines about how to, say, grow marijuana or the uses of marijuana for medicinal purposes would be outlawed. And, in a provision that goes far beyond anything the government has yet to propose to control the Internet, the ban would extend to cyberspace, banning links or pages that relate to substances that are now illegal. This provision is rife with problems, not the least of which is its assault on the First Amendment, which prohibits government from making any law that would cut off the free debate of issues public and private. Under the provision, debate would effectively be quelled on the efficacy of our drug-enforcement policies, along with advice for drug-users and information that might help them. In essence, this would throw the baby out with the bath water. Another provision, this one camouflaged under another heading in the measure as written, would greatly expand the power of government agents by allowing them to enter a private residence to conduct a search without telling the owner or occupant about the raid until the government gets good and ready. They would never have to tell the owner about "intangible" items taken, such as things that had been photographed or copied off a computer hard drive. Under present law, federal agents can search a home with a warrant, but they have to tell the owner what's up and what was taken in the raid. While this provision is included in the anti-meth legislation, it would effectively expand the power of agents in every criminal search. The new law so expands law-enforcement's authority at the expense of individual rights that it's hard to fit it into our constitutional framework at all, unless it is the intention of supporters simply to do away with constitutional protections for a certain class of citizens. One supporter of the bill in the House has justified these expanded powers for law enforcement by saying that "anything we can do to win the war on drugs is worth doing." Anything? Those Americans who value their freedoms might suggest otherwise. - --- MAP posted-by: Derek Rea