Pubdate: Tue, 24 Sep 2002
Source: Plain Dealer, The (OH)
Copyright: 2002 The Plain Dealer
Contact:  http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/342
Author: Tom Brazaitis
Note: Brazaitis is a senior editor in the Washington bureau of the 
Cleveland Plain Dealer.

U.S. SHOULD CONCEDE DEFEAT IN THE WAR ON DRUGS

One War At A Time Is Enough, Don't You Think?

With President George W. Bush hell-bent on waging war against terrorism, 
isn't it about time he surrendered gracefully in the war on drugs? It isn't 
his war to begin with. President Nixon declared war on drugs 30 years ago. 
It proved useful politically in his landslide re-election over Democrat 
George McGovern, but it has been a losing battle ever since.

The federal budget for the war in 1972 was roughly $101 million. In that 
same year, the average monthly Social Security check was $177.

Now, the federal government is spending almost $20 billion a year on the 
drug war. To put the increase in context, if Social Security had grown at 
the same rate the average monthly check today would be more than $35,000.

And what are we getting for our money?

Foreign production of illegal drugs has increased, not decreased, despite 
billions spent on trying to cut off the flow at the source.

Despite more billions lavished on border security, customs officials admit 
they stop less than 20 percent of drugs coming into this country. Even if 
authorities could cut off the overseas supply, domestic suppliers would 
fill the gap.

The supply of drugs is so plentiful that today's marijuana, cocaine and 
heroin are of higher quality and selling for lower prices than ever.

As for demand, didn't Prohibition teach us that no amount of laws and 
policing can control what people consume privately?

Millions of young people in the United States have criminal records because 
they grew or used or simply possessed a prohibited drug. They got caught. 
The president wouldn't be president if he had been caught in his reckless 
youth. He'd be just another ex-con.

Now, the president's niece, the daughter of Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, faces 
the stigma of a criminal record. You'd think these personal encounters with 
the foolishness of treating drug use as a crime rather than a medical issue 
would have an impact on how the Bush brothers shape drug policy. But no.

The National Academy of Sciences concluded that the drug war has been a 
flop. But Bush never has paid much attention to science. Consider that he 
ignores the abundant scientific evidence on global warming.

A sign of just how far out of control the drug war has wandered came last 
week in Santa Cruz, Calif., where the mayor, a half-dozen city council 
members and three former mayors joined an estimated 1,000 citizens to defy 
the Drug Enforcement Administration by distributing cannabis products in 
the courtyard of City Hall.

California voters have twice voted to make marijuana legal for use in 
alleviating the symptoms of serious illnesses. Again, the National Academy 
of Sciences supports the idea that marijuana works to lessen nausea and 
other side effects in cancer patients and others.

The open display of defiance by Santa Cruz officials came two weeks after 
the DEA raided the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana, destroyed the 
group's 2002 marijuana crop and arrested the operators.

I happened to be in California last week, 75 miles from where the 
insurrection occurred, and I spoke with Joe McNamara, a former police chief 
who has campaigned against the drug war since retiring from active police duty.

McNamara, who served with the New York City Police Department and as police 
chief in Kansas City, Mo., and San Jose, Calif., now is a research fellow 
at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he writes and 
lectures on the damage caused by criminalizing drugs.

The drug war has been far more harmful to America than the drugs themselves 
ever were or could be, McNamara says. In fact, he says, the political 
leadership's obsession with combating drugs may have been a factor in our 
vulnerability to terrorists on Sept. 11. "In budget requests made four 
months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks, the FBI asked for only eight 
additional agents to combat terrorism a " a meager increase that follows 
the agency's paltry 2 percent manpower growth over the past two years," 
McNamara wrote in the Winter 2001 edition of the trade journal Regulation.

"The Drug Enforcement Agency, on the other hand, has enjoyed a 26 percent 
increase in personnel. It is worth pondering whether the Sept. 11 attacks 
would have occurred if Congress had increased FBI anti-terrorism resources 
by 26 percent instead of DEA resources."

Isn't it about time we pursued an honorable peace in this dishonorable war?

Distributed by Newhouse News Service.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth