Pubdate: Thu, 14 Aug 2003
Source: Valley Morning Star (TX)
Copyright: 2003 Valley Morning Star
Contact:  http://www.valleystar.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/584

WAVING BANNER OF FAILED DRUG WAR

The U.S. government has approved a return to anti-drug flights over 
Colombia. Those flights were suspended two years ago after a Peruvian 
fighter mistakenly shot down a plane, killing missionary Veronica Bowers 
and her infant daughter.

The mistake was blamed on a breakdown in procedures and a lack of 
communication between U.S. operatives and the Peruvian air force. Those 
problems have been solved, according to government sources in the United 
States. However, the flights will not resume over Peru because of a lack of 
planes and radar in that South American country.

The Bowerses were innocent victims of the war on drugs. They weren't the 
first and, tragically, they won't be the last. The government's misguided 
mission to keep Americans from voluntarily putting things into their bodies 
that aren't good for them claims innocent victims every day.

Last year, the Office of National Drug Control Policy spent millions of 
dollars on an ad campaign that attempted to blame those deaths on drug 
users in the United States by linking the war on drugs to the war on 
terrorism. Those ads ignored the simple economics of market forces.

Any time a product or activity is prohibited by law, a black market for it 
springs up. After all, many people aren't going to give up something they 
desire simply because it's illegal; by hook or by crook they'll find a way 
to obtain it and they'll pay whatever the going price is. If that price 
becomes too much to bear, customers will find an alternative if they can.

Of course, those who have become addicted to certain drugs have fewer 
options as long as they refuse treatment.

On the supply side of the equation, because providers must operate below 
the radar of law enforcement, their costs of doing business are higher. 
They move their product in small quantities, sometimes bribe officials and 
they must protect their markets themselves since they cannot turn to 
government for that support. All of this increases suppliers' costs above 
what they would be if they operated in the open. Profits must be high 
enough to pay these costs and offset the possibility of getting caught and 
sent to prison.

It's these high profits that make dealing drugs so attractive to organized 
criminals of all types. These people will go to any length to protect their 
livelihoods. This goes a long way toward explaining the violence associated 
with the drug trade -- individuals and gangs are protecting their turf.

Unfortunately, criminals don't often worry about the collateral damage of 
their turf wars. The innocent bystanders killed and injured in these 
battles for market control are also victims of the drug war.

The U.S. government's war on drugs has been anything but successful. 
According to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse released a year 
ago, drug use among people under 26 was on the rise. The study found no 
significant change in drug use among Americans older than 26. We can't help 
but believe that at least a portion of drug use is the lure of forbidden 
fruits.

We're not naive enough to think that decriminalizing drugs would solve all 
the problems associated with the drug war -- in this country or in the 
countries that produce drugs. We do, however, believe the war on drugs is a 
waste of resources, especially in a time when government spending is 
climbing. That money and manpower could be put to better use elsewhere in 
society.

We're also hard-pressed to see where it's the government's responsibility 
to limit people's freedom in such a personal decision as what they do with 
their own bodies. Government should limit itself to making sure people's 
actions don't infringe on the rights of others.

The government does have a responsibility to prevent drug use by those who 
aren't able to take responsibility for their actions, such as minors, but 
adults should be allowed to make their own decisions so long as they accept 
the consequences.

We wouldn't want to be on the road with someone who had just taken a 
mind-altering drug, any more than we want to share the road with a drunken 
driver. That's where the government's duty lies -- protecting the innocent.

But if a person wants to smoke marijuana or snort a bit of cocaine in the 
privacy of his own home after a hard day's work, is it really the 
government's job to stop him?

Thomas Jefferson wrote he "would rather be exposed to the inconveniences 
attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of 
it." We've tried prohibition; perhaps it's time to try liberty.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart