Pubdate: Fri, 15 Oct 1999
Source: Daily Bruin (CA)
Copyright: 1999 ASUCLA Student Media
Address: 118 Kerckhoff Hall, 308 Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90024
Fax: (310) 206-0528
Website: http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/
Author:  Daniel Inlender

WAR ON DRUGS DOES MORE HARM THAN GOOD 

LAWS: Intervention By Government Causes Rise In Crime, Violates Rights 

The war on drugs has cost America a great deal of money and lives. For the
first half of our country's history, alcohol and other drugs were legal,
but for a short period in the 1920s, during alcohol prohibition, a reversal
of this policy saw crime rates quickly grow out of control. Today, drug
prohibition has resulted in this same upsurge of violent crime in addition
to new problems, such as a wave of unjustified property seizure by the
government and an explosion in the cost of health care.

Furthermore, today's war on drugs is completely incompatible with the view
that individuals are sovereign and possess rights. The partial legalization
of medical marijuana in California and Arizona demonstrates that voters are
finally realizing that the only real casualties in the war on drugs are the
law-abiding citizens of the United States.

At the turn of the century, marijuana and many other drugs were completely
legal. Some people did have abuse problems, but drive-by shootings and turf
wars were rarities. People were free to make their own decisions and accept
the consequences, until the 18th Amendment was ratified in 1919 and alcohol
prohibition began. Illegal crime rings sprang up to meet the continuing
demand for alcohol and were rewarded with huge profits. Crime rates
skyrocketed, corruption abounded, and alcohol still flowed as always.

In 1933, following the St. Valentine's Day Massacre (during which violence
came to a head as Al Capone slaughtered an entire rival gang), the 21st
Amendment ended prohibition and crime rates returned to normal.

Today, murder rates are twice what they were before the war on drugs began
in the 1950s, and violent crimes have risen by a factor of six (Browne,
"Why Government Doesn't Work," 1995). Gangs fight over turf and buy guns
with profits from drug sales. Addicts resort to crime to support habits
which would cost little more than smoking, if legal.

History is repeating itself, but the politicians, too busy competing for
the title of "Toughest on Crime," only notice the rates, rather than the
causes, of crime.

The war has also led to massive property confiscation. Your property can be
seized based on an unidentified informant's unconfirmed tip. Your property
can be seized if someone else has used it to sell drugs without your
knowledge. Your property can be seized even if you are never charged with a
crime. In 1994, total property seizures at all levels of government
exceeded $2 billion.

The case of Sam Zhanadov is particularly illustrating. Zhanadov was a
Russian immigrant who pursued the American dream. He started up a
million-dollar factory through hard work and productive ingenuity. It was
confiscated by the Drug Enforcement Administration because the bottles he
manufactured could be used to store crack cocaine. All of his property, not
just the factory, was confiscated. His trial was a sham. He was imprisoned,
denied necessary medical care and willfully mistreated.

The war on drugs has cost Americans civil liberties, and even lives. In
1994, a SWAT team mistakenly raided the apartment of Rev. Acelynne
Williams, 75, who consequently died of a heart attack. 

This is not just an isolated incident. USA Today reports in a May 18, 1992
issue that in poor areas of Washington, D.C., police "routinely confiscate
small amounts of cash and jewelry" from African American men on the streets.

The government's chokehold on the use of drugs for medicinal purposes is
part of the cause of the tenfold increase in the cost of medical care
during the past few decades. It takes an average of $300 million and up to
10 years to have a drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration. By
forbidding terminally ill patients from to take experimental drugs, the FDA
condemns thousands of people to death each year. It would be better to
leave the safety of a certain drug up to the innovating company (whose
profits depend upon its credibility), the individual consumer, doctors and
insurance companies.

Furthermore, the war on drugs is completely incompatible with inalienable
human rights. By taking away a person's freedom to make his or her own
decisions, the government is, in effect, dictating what a person should and
should not think. This establishment of a moral code is nothing less than
the government presuming to be Big Brother. As President Abraham Lincoln
once said, "Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it
attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out
of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very
principles upon which our government was founded."

It has been said that if government were to leave people free to take drugs
at their own discretion, it would send the wrong message to our youth.

Even if this were true, what does the current policy imply? That it is
acceptable for government to tell people how to live? That it is fine for
government to dictate right and wrong? That we do not have to worry about
the responsibility of thought, because government has already made the
decision for us? Such arguments rest on the premises that it is the role of
government to legislate morality, that individuals are incapable of
thinking for themselves, and that government may, even under normal
circumstances, intrude on a parent's right to raise a child as they wish.

It is not the role of government to protect us from ourselves. Such a
government regards its citizens, the voters who elect the government, as
children who are too incompetent to run their own lives. The only proper
role of government is to protect people from the initiation of force and
fraud.

Advocates of the war on drugs consider drug sales to be a "victimless
crime"; however, if no rights are violated, force is not initiated and all
parties agree, then by definition, there is no victim and therefore, no crime.

Crimes such as driving under the influence of any drug must always be
illegal and a person can forfeit their right to use drugs through
violations of the rights of others. Until that time, however, he or she
must be treated as a sovereign individual - innocent until proven guilty,
as demanded by the Constitution.

Today, steps are being taken to reduce crime and restore the rights of
citizens. On Nov. 5, 1996, voters in California and Arizona were presented
with the unique opportunity to permit the prescription of marijuana for
medical purposes. Despite opposition from status-quo-oriented politicians
such as Drug Czar Barry Macaffrey and former President George Bush, who
argued that allowing relief to the sick and dying would send the wrong
message to today's youth, a majority of the voters affirmed both bills.
Only time will tell if this is the first step in the return to the
principles of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, but it is undoubtedly a
step in the right direction.

The war on drugs is little more than a drawn out, tragically amplified
version of the prohibition of alcohol earlier this century. It has brought
back the crime and drive-by shootings of the 1920s, allowed unprecedented
violation of property rights, and hindered the development of life-saving
drugs. It denies the rights and individuality of American citizens and
contradicts the entirety of our political heritage. The war on drugs is
nothing less than a war on America. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake