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