Issues > The War on Drugs

Loren studied in law school to be a criminal prosecutor, and he has seen firsthand how the War on Drugs is fought. The United States may not be losing the War on Drugs, but neither are we winning it. And the mere fight itself has cost our nation more than we can measure.

It is an inefficient war. There are the billions of dollars we have spent fighting this war. Jails and prisons are overrun with nonviolent drug offenders, and prosecutors' offices are overwhelmed with petty possession charges. These are valuable resources that would be far better allocated elsewhere.

We have also paid a price in freedom and liberty, as we've grown accustomed to the law enforcement standards that have evolved because of the means that are necessary to enforce our drug laws. The Supreme Court has expressed its willingness to turn a blind eye to police no-knock searches of private homes because of the disposable nature of drugs. That decision, in an of itself, is not a legal outrage; it is simply the natural evolution of a war waged on behavior that is inherently private.

Recent news reports have also once again exposed our own double standard with regard to drug crimes. When a drug offender is an everyday Joe, we as a society have few qualms with imposing a lengthy prison sentence or probation. The emphasis is on punishment for the crime. But when the offender is wealthy or well-connected, the criminal becomes the victim. Instead of prison, they go to the Betty Ford Clinic. Although both possessed large amounts of painkillers in Florida, Rush Limbaugh was sentenced to drug treatment and a fine, while Richard Paey was given 25 years in prison. America's hoi polloi spoke up in Dallas Austin's defense and got him off scot-free, while there are men in America who are imprisoned for possession of smaller quantities.

We aren't so forgiving when celebrities commit crimes of fraud or violence, but we hesitate to throw the book at them for drug use. If we prefer treatment to prison for the people whose names and faces we know, we should be willing to extend the same courtesy to those we don't recognize.

Does this mean we should legalize drugs entirely? Absolutely not. No first-world nation has attempted putting all drugs out onto the open market, and a nation of 300 million people should not be the first guinea pig. The risks are far too great.

Furthermore, outright legalization presupposes that either the government or large corporations (like Phillip Morris) would control a market of highly dangerous and yet highly addictive products. Other agencies, such as the FDA, exist for the explicit purpose of keeping such products out of the market. After all, the free market is built upon the individual's freedom to choose, and the physically addictive nature of drugs inhibits that very freedom.

But we need to be willing to step back and examine how we might more efficiently combat America's drug problem. Maybe we can find a way to cut drug use without spending $19 billion a year, without further limiting privacy and personal liberty, and without incarcerating tens of thousands of people at public expense. We should not stop fighting the War on Drugs, but we need to reevaluate the methods we use and the costs we've incurred under the current system.