IT'S TIME TO REGROUP IN THE WAR ON DRUGS

THE POINT - Why Shouldn't Our Individual Liberties Be The
Guideline?

The U.S. government recently 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, due
to 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, 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.