THE WAR ON DRUGS ACTUALLY MEANS A WAR ON YOU

Our nation is engaged in a war which, it seems to me, ought to be ended.
This war is a war on beliefs and a war on each other. It is commonly
referred to as the "war on drugs," and we are its casualties.

It is time for us to face reality in our "war on drugs." Among the
realities we seem to be ducking are:

We are making war on plants.

We are making war on those who use these plants.

We are taking this war across borders into other countries.

We are adding more enemies all the time.

We are violating our own national purpose in the process.

We permit no distinction between "use" and "abuse" of "illegal" drugs.

Our courts have almost no latitude for lenience.

There is a huge market for "drugs."

This is not a war between Republicans and Democrats. Both major political
parties support this war. This is not a war between conservatives and
liberals. There are sound reasons for both liberals and conservatives to
support this war, and there are sound reasons for both liberals and
conservatives to oppose it. This is not a war between good and evil. Many
of the "good guys" are ruthless, dangerous, and use drugs - albeit "legal"
ones - of their own; and many of the "bad guys" are kind, considerate, and
wouldn't hurt a fly.

This is a war between the government and the governed.

This is a war of tyranny.

We in America pride ourselves on being members of a "free" political system
with a "free market" economy. In a free society it is a constant source of
aggravation to see how people exercise their freedom, what with electing
people like Bill Clinton as president and allowing Playboy to be published
and purchased, but the fact is that "freedom" must be something we can
practice badly before it means anything to be practiced well. And, too, it
would serve us to keep in mind the two different components to our social
underpinnings: Our political heritage and our economic heritage. It is a
truism that for anyone to be an economic conservative - believing in the
free market, individual accountability, private ownership of the means of
production, restricted government interference - he must be a social
liberal - allowing people to act freely, to take risks, to contribute
according to their gifts, to learn from failure. And, for anyone to be a
social conservative - employ government to keep people from behaving badly,
restrict freedoms, imprison wrong-doers - he must be an economic liberal -
high taxation, lots of government spending, lots of police and soldiers to
keep the rowdy public in line.

Where drugs are concerned there is a political and economic reality to
confront: there is a market for drugs. There is a heavy demand, there is a
plentiful supply, and there are go-betweens willing to connect the two.
This market is large enough to qualify as a political force, if not a
majority, and all it lacks is organization. It may now be time to
acknowledge that we no more diminish the demand for drugs with laws and
punishment than we diminish the demand for water with mineral rights. All
we settle is a question that is fundamental to the law: Who benefits?

If we were as "conservative" as we like to believe we are, there would be no
"war on drugs." They would be taxed. Local judges could return to setting
appropriate punishments for individual excesses that violate local norms.
Those who believe all drugs to be horrible would be free to associate with
those who shared their belief, in churches for example, where virtues such
as "tolerance" and "forgiveness" could be reviewed along with "abstinence"
and "chastity." Those who chose to use substances like marijuana would fall
under the same restrictions as those who use substances like alcohol.

Of course, it would throw a huge monkey wrench into the money-gobbling
glutton we call government, but stopping a war doesn't please everyone.