in today's inbox, from Libertarian friends:
Subject: Another war against ourselves
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 08:13:02 -0400
Friends,
A message from John Stossel, ABC News, on the War on Drugs:
+++++
ABC has given me a full hour Tuesday night at 10 p.m. ET for a show on the
drug war. I use the time to raise the question: Does the "War on Drugs"
do more harm than the drugs?
I think it does.
We know the terrible things drug abuse does, but we rarely consider the
terrible things drug prohibition does.
The government declaring drugs illegal doesn't mean people can't get them.
(We cannot even keep the drugs out of prisons -- how could we keep them out
of America?) It only means people get drugs on the black market, where
they pay more for them.
This creates the nasty, unintended consequences of the drug war:
l. It sucks children into the underworld.
Why should a kid from a poor neighborhood work at McDonald's, when he can
make 10 times the money selling drugs? Those who resist the temptation
are heroic. The neighborhood role models, the people with the best cars
and the best clothing, are drug dealers. Who commands respect in the
neighborhood? Criminals! Had I grown up there, I bet I would have
succumbed. We interview the kids.
2. It corrupts cops.
How many cops turn down a bribe that would double their pay? We'll show
video of a police officer taking the money.
3. It corrupts entire countries.
We go to Colombia, which now produces most of America's heroin and
cocaine. I don't recommend vacationing there. Colombia is now the world
leader in kidnappings. Murder is common. There have already been 15
attempts on the life of Colombia's next president; he's decided to stay in
Europe until his inauguration next month. Drug money trumps law.
4. It creates crime.
Films like "Reefer Madness" (we'll show you a clip) suggested people take
drugs and go crazy. In reality, people rarely get violent because they're
high on drugs.
Most drugs users get high privately, live a reasonably normal life, and
eventually quit. The violence we associate with drugs happens because
warring dealers arm themselves to protect their turf, and because addicts
steal to pay the high prices for drugs. Nicotine is about as addictive as
cocaine or heroin, but few people rob 7-11s to get Marlboros or Budweiser.
Drugs hurt people, but it's the law that causes most of the crime.
Alcohol prohibition gave rise to criminals like Al Capone; drug
prohibition is making criminals even richer. The State Department says
that's how Osama bin Laden got some of his money.
So what should be done?
I talk to a Bronx priest who argues that life would be better if drugs
were legal. "Legal means control," says Father Joseph Kane. "Illegal means
the bad guys have control."
California Judge James Gray agrees. "Hold people accountable for what they
do, not for what they put into their bodies," he says.
The head of the DEA, Asa Hutchinson, calls these arguments "giving in."
I go to Europe to look at the "Dutch experiment" which separated "hard" and
"soft" drugs by legalizing the sale of marijuana in licensed "coffee
shops." The menus offer marijuana joints, baggies, teas and chocolates.
Despite legalization, fewer Dutch teens use marijuana than American teens.
Today police in most of Europe ignore marijuana use. In Spain, Italy and
Luxembourg, they've decriminalized most drug use, and in Portugal
recently, all drug use. Switzerland and a few other countries now
prescribe heroin to some addicts. I visit a Rotterdam priest who allows
addicts to smoke and inject heroin in "user rooms" in the church basement.
Rotterdam's local police superintendent says the problem is "bigger" when
the police interfere.
LEGAL drugs sounds frightening -- but the DRUG WAR is frightening too.
Legal drugs might lead more Americans to experiment, but would it create a
health crisis? I suspect use would go up, and then down, as it did with
crack. People aren't endlessly foolish.
In any case, don't we own our own bodies? Whose decision is it to control
what we put in our own bodies? Ours? Or the state's?
+++++
|
