Pubdate: Sat, 28 Jul 2001
Source: Baltimore Sun (MD)
Copyright: 2001 The Baltimore Sun, a Times Mirror Newspaper.
Contact:  http://www.sunspot.net/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/37
Author: Gregory Kane

THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE WAR ON DRUGS

READ IT and scream.

The story is about a man named Andrew Chambers. The Los Angeles Times and 
St. Louis Post-Dispatch are among the newspapers that have written about 
Chambers, who may become a symbol for everything that is wrong with the 
"war on drugs."

For 16 years, Chambers was an informant for the Drug Enforcement 
Administration. His snitching led to the arrests of more than 400 suspects 
and the seizure of $6 million in assets. That's the good news. But the bad 
news is very bad.

Chambers lied under oath on 16 different occasions. He was arrested 13 
times on various charges -- including forgery and fraud -- while an 
informant. DEA agents either bailed him out or finagled the "justice" 
system into dropping the charges. DEA agents also knew of Chambers' perjury 
and criminal record and hid it from prosecutors and defense lawyers. But 
they continued shelling out the dough to him. In 16 years, Chambers made 
$1.8 million.

Do the math. (Lord knows, Chambers probably couldn't. He dropped out of 
high school). That comes to $112,500 annually for each of the 16 years 
Chambers was dropping dimes on drug suspects across the country. Those of 
you who work real jobs for 30, 40 or 50 grand a year and who graduated from 
high school or college must be wondering where you went wrong, because you 
got chumped -- we all got chumped -- by lunkhead government officials 
running the "war on drugs."

And this is not a partisan issue. Liberals and conservatives have supported 
the "war on drugs" and its primary strategy: Lock up enough black 
inner-city drug dealers or addicts and we'll win the war. Employ as many 
confidential informants as we can, even if, like Chambers, they prove to be 
unreliable. (Rick Escobar, a lawyer quoted in one news story, said there 
are hundreds of informants like Chambers running around.)

Stop cars on the highways and search them for drugs. Frisk passengers 
returning from flights abroad for drugs. Kick in doors and terrorize 
citizens based on the tips of these informants. If we find drugs, fine. If 
not, it's no big deal. We're waging a war here.

Candidates, both Democratic and Republican, campaign on continuing and 
winning the "war on drugs." But here's what they won't tell you: We're not 
winning it, and it probably can't be won. We've supposedly had shortages of 
a number of things over the years. There was an oil shortage. Drought in 
the West caused a water shortage. California recently experienced a power 
shortage. There's even been a shortage of the paper that makes up the 
newspaper you're now reading.

But you haven't heard of a shortage of heroin or cocaine, have you? In 
spite of all the arrests, all the interdiction, all the searches and the 
doors kicked in and the trials and the snitching, there's still enough dope 
in America for all its drug addicts to get happily high. We look at that 
evidence and then nod sheepishly when politicians tell us we need not a 
change, but more of the same.

So who's responsible for characters like Chambers? The DEA? The FBI and 
IRS? (Chambers worked for them, too.) No. We are. We're the ones who pony 
up tax dollars for the drug war. We're the ones funding this lunacy. We're 
the ones not holding politicians accountable. When someone comes along, 
like former Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke, and suggests decriminalizing 
drugs and treating addiction like a health crisis, we haughtily thrust our 
noses skyward and sniff, "We will never do that. It will send the wrong 
message."

Perhaps it's time we consider what message we send by paying an Andrew 
Chambers nearly $2 million to lie. Next to him, the drug addict who 
candidly admits, "I just want a hit of heroin or crack," seems downright 
refreshing. But we prefer the hypocrisy and perfidy of a Chambers to the 
honesty of a drug addict. Maybe that's because we're all a bit hypocritical 
in the messages we send.

Those drinking establishments that sell drinks at reduced prices in certain 
time slots and call the event "the happy hour" promote the notion that 
drinking makes you happy, and the more you drink, the happier you are. 
Those television ads that tell the kiddies beer is something you can't do 
without are priming us for our next generation of drug addicts.

Drug war advocates will protest that assertion, claiming it comes from one 
of those nutty drug legalizers. Well, we drug legalizers may not know about 
messages. But we do know what the No. 1 drug problem in this country is. 
It's not heroin, and it's not cocaine or crack either.

It's alcohol, which is every bit the gateway drug that marijuana is. Any 
true drug war has to teach our children that truth, and proponents of that 
war must insist that "happy hours" and television alcohol ads have to go. 
The booze industry will not suffer. Prohibition proved that Americans will 
drink. They don't need happy hours or beer ads to encourage them.

What they need is an end to the "war on drugs" and fewer folks like Andrew 
Chambers.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens