One Way to Stop a War Is to Surrender. 

Former N.C.  Chief Justice Burley B.  Mitchell Jr.  on Monday suggested decriminalization as an answer to a national war on drugs that has proved to be "an utter failure, a total failure."

Mitchell, North Carolina's top judge from 1995 to 1999, was speaking at a forum addressing the prison crisis.  It would relieve overcrowding and save money if the state stopped locking up so many people for drug-related offenses, he said. 

Yes, and the same would be true if other crimes were decriminalized, too. 

The arguments for drug legalization are familiar: Law-enforcement strategies have just created large, violent and powerful criminal networks; as with prohibition of alcoholic beverages, efforts to curtail popular activities are doomed to fail; and what's the harm in responsible recreational drug use, anyway?

Mitchell is no bleeding-heart liberal.  As a district attorney, he won convictions and 10-year prison sentences against college kids caught with an ounce of marijuana, he said in a phone interview Tuesday.  He thinks it's time to find other ways to deal with what he says is more of a medical than a criminal problem. 

But he admitted he hasn't thought through the details.  Would decriminalization mean simply to stop punishing minor drug offenses like possession of small amounts of marijuana or cocaine? If so, would that still leave existing illegal drug networks in place?

How about the creation of a legal drug distribution system? Just pick up your cocaine at the local drugstore.  But, when pharmaceutical products are strictly regulated and tested for years before they reach the marketplace -- and manufacturers can face multimillion-dollar lawsuits for mistakes -- the notion of legally available, government-approved heroin seems far-fetched.  As for marijuana, the legal troubles of the tobacco industry should warn off any legitimate business that would think about selling pot. 

Would the list of decriminalized drugs include methamphetamine, crack cocaine, ecstasy and LSD? If not -- and common sense would dictate not -- wouldn't there still be an illicit market for those commodities?

The fact is, such drugs aren't harmless.  All can induce destructive behavior, cause adverse health effects and damage families. 

The cost of trying to contain drug abuse is high, and the resources haven't been used effectively.  More money should be spent on treatment.  Fewer people should be imprisoned, and in many cases prison sentences should be shorter with a greater focus on rehabilitation. 

But illegal drugs are so closely associated with other criminal behaviors that their use and abuse can't be accepted in our society.  The answer to crime isn't to announce that it isn't crime anymore; it is to implement effective strategies to deter dangerous behaviors and to make better alternatives available. 

Former Justice Mitchell no doubt is frustrated by so many setbacks in the war against drugs.  But surrender is the ultimate setback.  If drugs are harmful to society now, toleration will only worsen the problem.