news you can use

Book review: An adult approach to drug policies
Tuesday, 26 December 2000 16:24 (ET)
Book review: An adult approach to drug policies

By ELISA POTEAT


WASHINGTON, Dec. 26 (UPI) ' For those who enjoy an academic discussion of issue of the legalization of drugs, After Prohibition, an Adult Approach to Drug Policies in the 21st Century, a compilation of essays by mostly academics and researchers at the non-profit libertarian Cato Institute, will be a welcome, if limited resource. (Cato, pp.193, $9.95)

As the title of the book suggests, the authors of the essays advocate the legalization of drugs as a response to the drug war declared by President Richard Nixon more that twenty-five years ago.

For those who work in addiction therapy, the criminal justice system, or with the peripheral victims of our nation's terrible drug problem, After Prohibition, will likely be an annoying chapter in the ivory tower debates that have sprung from the cloisters of academia and think-tanks, where the advocates of legalization have little contact with drug addicts and dealers on a day to day basis. Even for those who enjoy the debate on the legalization of drugs, After Prohibition will not bring any new depth to this issue.

Certainly it will not change the mind of the majority of Americans who do not want drugs, especially hard drugs, legalized.

In his essay, Tabula Rasa, Timothy Lynch, director of the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice, clearly highlights the seeming failure of the war on drugs to stem the tide of drugs and the crimes associated with them.

Lynch outlines the enormous increase of expenditures by the federal government in its battle against the drug trade. As Lynch accurately notes, the expenditures have not had the results for which the public had hoped. On the contrary, the nation's prison populations have swelled while the drug trade has continued to thrive, seemingly unfettered.

Other essayists who contributed to the book have made some interesting points, although they often leave out certain facts that would undermine their position on the war on drugs. Gary Johnson, the governor of New Mexico, advocates the legalization of drugs in his essay as a cost-saving measure without ever saying how this measure would save the country money and preserve its values.

As with the other contributors, Johnson concedes that the legalization of drugs would create more addicts. Johnson, like most of the other contributors, cannot say how the nation would provide for the cost of legalization, or clearly set forth the logistics of legalization. Roger Pilon, Cato's vice president for legal affairs, argues in his essay that there is no constitutional authority for the present federal drug laws. Pilon adheres to his position despite the reality that drug dealers have become expert in using interstate vehicles, such as airplanes, trucks and trains, cellular telephones and computers to accomplish their goals.

Generally, the essayists make the case for legalization by offering horrifying anecdotes about Fourth Amendment violations by law enforcement agencies. Indeed, at least two stories (the murder of a grandfather during a misguided raid on a home, and the gunning down of a Mexican-American shepherd by a Marine during a drug patrol) are referred to more than once in the book because of the emotional reaction anyone would have to such atrocities. They do not, however, provide a sound argument for the legalization of drugs.

These stories of exceptional errors on the part of law enforcement do provide a strong argument for better police training, criminal penalties for such violations by law enforcement, and a careful and thoughtful limitation on the powers given to the military to provide support in the drug war.

Twice, writers analogize drug use to the ingestion of high-fat foods and tobacco, as if crack cocaine use is as benign an endeavor. Nearly every contributor points out the fact that alcohol is a legal drug, as if the intravenous use of heroin is analogous to having a drink.

The writers entirely miss the obvious point that alcohol, despite all its ill effects is not as physically addictive as heroin or crack. Most writers anchor their arguments for legalizing all drugs around a reference to marijuana, without ever exploring the failed methadone model, or really addressing the logistics of proposed legal drug distribution. While these other substances may be harmful, most Americans have decided that they are not on a par with the consumption of heroin and crack cocaine.

Where the book is strongest is in its discussion of mandatory minimum sentences for drugs, asset forfeiture laws and the abuses of personal liberties.

Sadly, the authors lack the sort of personal knowledge of these matters that would make for more credible and exciting reading.

The writers seem to want the average tax-paying citizen to fear government seizure of his property. The naked truth is that the overwhelming majority of drug dealers do not pay income tax as the average citizen does, and they seem to relish the acquisition of expensive objects. The dealers have cleverly developed a complex practice of shifting paper ownership of houses, boats, cars and stocks into the names of their relatives and lovers in order to conceal their bounty from the authorities.

One contributor notes, that, unchecked, asset forfeiture laws can spawn corruption by both police and prosecutors. Again, however, the writer who posits that theory provides only an anecdote in support of this premise ' the district attorney who prosecuted the drug dealer driving a luxury car that was seized. The problem with these anecdotes is that they are just that ' anecdotes.

Julie Stewart, the president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, presents the only issue in this debate that will not fade from view. At present, there is a ground swell to change the mandatory minimum sentences under the federal sentencing guidelines for drug offenses.

The primary focus of this debate in the real world is the racial disparity of the sentences for crack cocaine versus powder, although Stewart's essay mentions this central focus only briefly. That matter has come to the attention of the public largely through the efforts of black American leaders who, rather than wanting drugs legalized, want the sentences to be evenly distributed between people of different races with good reason.

The book fairly makes the case for the vigilant protection of civil liberties despite the rage of the citizenry about the drug problem. The one point not raised by any of the authors is that, in countries where the drug penalties are very high, the drug problem is lower.

One of the more lively essays is that by Michael Levine, a retired DEA agent. Levine, who is now a private consultant for the defense and for local police agencies, proposes an attack on the addict as means of drying up the supply side of the drug market. Although not mentioned in his essay, Levine's suggested technique has been used in a number of jurisdictions resulting in no more than the herding of criminals from one area to another. Perhaps what makes Levine's piece a more entertaining read is that he has real world experience, both personal and professional, in dealing with the drug problem.

For that reason, his piece has a deeper ring, credibility and passion to it than many of the others.

It is too bad the only contributor solidly in favor of the continued battle against the drug trade is Dan Lundgren, the former attorney general of California. Lundgren's piece is heartfelt, if somewhat emotional. Certainly the Cato contributors could have found a better advocate for the continued criminality of drugs than Lundgren.

Wholly missing from the book is any reference to the massive change in the approach to drug possession that has swept the country's courts since the 1990s.

In California and the District of Columbia, people arrested for the mere possession of marijuana (as opposed to its possession for sale) are given a citation, like a traffic ticket, and are told to appear in court on a later date, and are not arrested.

Many other jurisdictions have the same procedure. Also, people arrested for drug possession for the first time, even for possession of heroin and cocaine, are given the opportunity for diversion. That is, a drug program sponsored by the court.

This change in the nation's approach to drugs was not mentioned in any of the essays. The diversion programs clearly represent a desire on the part of lawmakers and their constituents to provide drug users and addicts an opportunity to take a different path, and they reflect our overall societal desire to give drug addicts a carefully circumscribed chance to change their ways. Yet, no essayist in After Prohibition mentions this shift in the nation's drug policy. Perhaps that is because this change shows the efforts on the part of lawmakers to address the disease of addiction without caving in to the drug problem as a whole.

Certainly there is no harm in keeping a dialogue open about the legalization of drugs. However, as a practical matter, it is unlikely that in the United States, the public will change their mind about the devastating effects of the drug trade.


Copyright 2000 by United Press International.

All rights reserved.

Design copyright Scars Publications and Design. Copyright of individual pieces remain with the author. All rights reserved. No material may be reprinted without express permission from the author.

Problems with this page? Then deal with it...