Drugs can exercise a powerful hold over the human person. Witness RobertDowney Jr.
Obviously Mr. Downey, arrested again for drugs only three months after beingreleased from prison, has made a mess of his life. But why is the governmentthreatening to jail him for another five years? He has harmed no one else.He has done nothing to warrant imprisonment.
The government's war on drugs has had only indifferent success in reducingdrug abuse. Consumption has long varied, irrespective of ongoing enforcementefforts. More than 80 million people, 15 million last year, have tried drugsdespite increasingly draconian penalties.
Most are casual users who can and do quit. The threat of prosecution hasundoubtedly discouraged casual use, but casual use is of minimalconsequence. Three-fourths of present drug users, like Downey, are employed.Corporations, law firms, government agencies, and legislative bodies arefull of people who once consumed drugs. Even presidents and presidents-electhave smoked marijuana without evident harm.
Where the drug laws are least effective is in stopping addicts, the 3.6million people, like Downey, estimated to be dependent on drugs.
"The threat of prison has been eliminated for me," observed Downey after hisrelease. "I know I can do time now."
If the drug laws won't stop someone like him, with so much to lose fromdoing drugs, who will they stop?
Perhaps the greatest failure of the war on drugs is that it does little toprotect kids. Over the last five years, teen demand for marijuana has fallena bit, but that for ecstasy has doubled. Half of teens have tried illicitdrugs. Nine out of 10 say it is fairly or very easy to obtain marijuana;nearly half say the same of cocaine.
Prohibition actually encourages consumption by children. Persistent liesabout the impact of drugs - from "reefer madness" on - have undercut thegovernment's credibility. The application of reduced criminal penalties tojuveniles has encouraged drug gangs to rely on kids. And banning drugs hascreated a black market, leaving drug sales in the hands of the sort ofpeople who actively market to children.
Unfortunately, the costs of the war on drugs are huge - $ 75 billion overthe past five years, 25 times the inflation-adjusted spending on Prohibitionin the 1920s.
Moreover, there are now 2 million people in federal and state prisons.One-fourth of state and 60 percent of federal prisoners are servingdrug-related charges - yet three-fourths of them had no prior convictionsfor violent crimes.
We are also losing our status as a free people. Corruption bedevils policeforces, court systems, the customs service, and even the military.
The lack of complaining witnesses means that drug offenses can be prosecutedonly through police-state tactics: promiscuous wiretaps, intrusive searches,racial profiling, confiscatory property forfeitures, propaganda-lacedtelevision shows, militarized law enforcement, and mindless mandatoryminimum sentences.
Although the Supreme Court recently tossed out traffic stops for narcotics,lawyers routinely talk about the "drug exception" to the Fourth Amendment.Mistaken drug raids regularly leave innocent dead in their wake.
Although there are people who consume drugs and then commit crimes, alcoholis by far the most criminogenic drug. Heroin and marijuana are more likelyto make people passive.
Most of the violence associated with drugs is drug-law related - marketingdisputes that cannot be peacefully resolved, as during Prohibition.
The violence spreads overseas to countries like Colombia. Absent America'sban on drug use, the drug trade would offer normal profits and attractnormal businessmen. Today, in contrast, these societies are truly at war.
The sick also pay a price. Although doctors may prescribe morphine to treatpain, the federal government refuses to make a similar allowance formarijuana.
Yet, in my view, the evidence is overwhelming that for some people,marijuana is the best medicine available today. In short, the practicalcosts of the drug war outweigh any practical benefits. But the case ofRobert Downey Jr. raises an even more fundamental moral issue.
Why should the government jail someone to prevent him from hurting himself?The moral argument for punishing a thief or murderer is clear. But not adrug user, especially when the vast majority of users are as responsible asany drinker.
The few who are "enslaved" by drugs still don't deserve prison. If RobertDowney Jr. can't do his job, then fire him for cause. If he drives a carwhile impaired, then punish him for driving under the influence. If he takesa drug that impairs his judgment and he hits someone, then jail him forassault. But don't imprison him simply for using drugs.
The unending presidential election has overshadowed an equally importantresult of Nov. 7 - voters' desire to chart an alternative drug strategy.
People across the country supported access to medical marijuana, endorsedtreatment over punishment, restricted property forfeitures, and, inCalifornia's Mendocino County, approved limited marijuana decriminalization.
There is no easy solution for drug abuse, but one thing is clear: We should"call off the hounds," as Michael Levine, a former agent with the DrugEnforcement Agency, puts it. Drug abuse is a health, moral, and spiritualproblem; it is time to stop treating it as a criminal problem.