October 1994

We live in contentious times!

Not a day goes by that someone doesn't challenge a fact, idea, or value that we previously thought settled long ago in either law, custom or common sense. Today, however, with the mass media demanding more stories to fill their pages or air-time, it seems as if a cottage industry has sprung up staffed by people who make a living challenging almost every aspect of our society, culture or beliefs.

All forms of media enjoy conflict as it is a fundamental element of what they define as newsworthy. The media often encourage conflict because there is great profit from raising and promoting the resultant debate. Of course, many self-proclaimed critics earn their living or are elected to office based on their challenge to a popular belief. So, whether it is an environmental issue, the treatment of a popular sports hero, the death penalty, or what is safe to eat, the rest of us are a left a bit more bewildered -- or in the best case, amused -- by the crass hucksterism of those involved.

In its worst form, the mass media treatment of an issue puts the population in the position of not knowing who or what to believe about an issue, personality, or idea. In either case, it is not a new or critical problem. Throughout history people have been trying to influence others to take a particular view. Since law enforcement by nature is newsworthy, it is reasonable to expect that we will have our share of critics.

In law enforcement the biggest target for our critics is how we are handling the "War on Drugs." Surprisingly, there are still some naive, ill-informed, but perhaps, well-meaning people who think the solution to substance abuse is to legalize narcotics. Few critics of our present drug enforcement policies have law enforcement experience, live in the inner city, have children with drug problems, or have cared for a crack-addicted baby. They merely sit in their ivory towers and analyze crime statistics they interpret to mean we have lost, or are losing the War on Drugs. Most critics' advice is not tempered with the reality of the street, the emergency room, or the sight of the effects of drug abuse -- human beings without dignity, hope, or rational thought.

Well, first, there never was by classic definition a "war" on drugs. The term "war" suggests that a society is willing to devote enormous resources to achieve victory. It also suggests that a society is willing to endure until they achieve victory. Our society has not committed the necessary resources or strength of will to solve the problem of drug abuse. Large portions of the blame for this situation lay with law enforcement.

Law enforcement has not educated the public well about the dangers of drug abuse. We seriously underestimated the complexity of eradicating drug distribution networks. Thinking politicians could solve the problem, we expended too much energy convincing them for more monies and laws. Looking back, we should have devoted more of our energies to the average citizen, the media and leaders in education and religion. Consequently, after 30 years of trying to stem the rising tide of drug abuse we find ourselves with a considerable amount of half-baked legislation on the books; under funded law enforcement agencies; and a population fearful of the impact of drug abuse on their families. Many are too terrified to leave their homes for a walk around the block or to go to the park!

Drug abuse, and its attendant problems of mental dysfunction, homelessness, suicide, spouse and child abuse, and violent crime has caused more damage to our way of life, our ability to enjoy basic freedoms, and our sense of personal security than any other event in our history. We still spend more on cosmetics and after shave lotion than we do on narcotics enforcement. Our lawmakers are more concerned about the rights of the offenders than the well-being of the victims of drug abuse and crime. It has become an "Alice in Wonderland" world!

Well, what should we do? We know the philosophy of the mass media is not going to change nor will the armchair critics of our drug enforcement policies fade away. So, when the cabinet-level politician, federal judge, mayor, or college professor appears on television or in print to say we should legalize illicit substances, we in law enforcement should just sigh; roll our eyes to the heavens; and counter each of their arguments for legalization with the following information. It is based on our experience, common sense, and I might add, a mixture of success and failure.

The objective of this article is to present the reasonable legalization arguments and provide persuasive rebuttals. It is not to chill debate or to demean those who are, in good faith, calling for some aspect of legalization. Do not view this article as an attempt to glorify, justify, or rationalize law enforcement's efforts to control drug problems. We have made many mistakes and will probably make more. Obviously, the problem of drug abuse continues despite our efforts. In addition, as a society we do not have definitive answers about why the problem escapes solution. In our frustration we tend to strike out and blame someone -- or something -- in an effort to find a silver bullet solution to the problem.

Both sides of the legalization argument agree that North America has a serious drug abuse problem involving legal and illegal substances. The stated goals of both sides are to protect individual rights; reduce general and violent crime; promote the mental and physical health of the people and ensure a better quality of life for all citizens. This discussion should, then, center on the path we need to take to ensure that our mutual objectives are met.

The law enforcement community argues that legalization advocates propose dangerous experiments in social policy. In our view, the legalization of illicit drugs promises no significant benefit to anyone in our society. We view the experiments as risks we should not entertain.

The basic arguments presented by proponents of legalization are as follows:

The central, underlying theme of many of the arguments to legalize illicit drugs is that individuals in a free society have a right to make their own choices, even if it leads to their own destruction. Dr. Ethan Nadelmann in the summer 1988 issue of Public Interest offered, "Legalization is . . . a recognition of the right to make . . . choices free of the fear of criminal sanction." Again, the debate over legalization centers on the delicate balance between the liberty and rights of individuals and the well-being of the community. Americans have frequently held that as long as an individual's behavior does not adversely affect others, then he/she should be free to do as they choose. This position safeguards freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association and the freedom to live a reasonable lifestyle. The conflict comes when an individual's action threatens the community. If the community decides that the potential threat to the citizenry overrides the freedom exercised by the individual, it handles the problem through laws and/or cultural norms.

For the individual rights argument to succeed, the proponents of legalization must successfully argue that the abuse of currently illicit drugs does not pose a significant threat. In practice, proponents offer the rationale that drugs are not harmful; that many individuals who use them are perfectly competent; and that users and addicts are not, primarily, to blame for their actions while under the influence. They also believe that the actions a community takes to protect itself are more of a threat to the public good than the actions of drug abusers. If current criminal sanctions were lifted and education and treatment emphasized, proponents of legalization think that there would be fewer social problems.

No one denies the importance of drug prevention, education and treatment. The real issues are:

• Whether society and government have the authority to protect the public from the harmful acts of drug abusers -- or other persons who would do the public harm either intentionally or otherwise;
• Whether society should protect an individual from himself; and
• What measure, or combination of measures, are acceptable in terms of diminished individual rights to promote the common welfare?

All sides agree that certain aspects of drug abuse (violence to others, for example) pose a significant threat to our society. So in these cases society does have a fundamental right to protect itself from danger.

Second, American and Canadian societies have a long history of taking appropriate measures to protect people from their own unwise actions. For example, we have established mandatory social security regulations and seat belt laws. Child labor laws, motorcycle helmet laws and hundreds of other similar regulations are specifically designed to keep people out of harm's way.

Finally, America's tradition of government and social policy is based on the recognition that individuals are responsible for the consequences of their actions. Some legalization advocates have sought to shift responsibility from the individual to society. The blame is first shifted to the parents and then to the schools, churches, or the individual's peers. If one cannot shift the blame here, then poverty, the stress of living in a large city, or abuse as a child becomes the excuse. Thus, a person who freely chooses to become drug dependent is excused from any blame for his/her actions or the consequences of their actions.

If this line of argumentation is accepted, it follows that we should excuse the actions of a person under the influence of drugs because their actions were not based upon free will. It is reasonably obvious that this line of argument is seriously flawed. No society would last long if individual actions were allowed to endanger the well-being of its members. This is true in a family, within a tribe or village, within a military unit, or any size organization dependent on the responsible actions of its members for the groups' security and safety.

Proponents of individual rights have used this argument with respect to sexual conduct, free speech and a host of other issues. Court decisions in these cases have always hinged on the impact that the extension of rights will have on the population. If the extension of rights is deemed harmless to society then the right is extended. If, however, the extension of a particular right is deemed injurious to the greater rights of the community then the extension is denied.

In the case of drug abuse, however, it is difficult to accept the argument that individuals not be held accountable for their lifestyles. A large number of our citizens have freely chosen to ignore the law and engage in activities that are a threat not only to themselves but the community. In doing so, they have created a situation that imperils the community. The court decisions rendered in situations of this type have, thus far, held strong that the law was not wrong, unjust or an unacceptable infringement of individual rights. The courts have consistently said that an individual must be held responsible for his/her acts. The court decisions of today reaffirm what common sense, scholars, theologians and our founding fathers have told us for centuries -- individual rights have limits. Clearly, drug abuse can never be viewed by a healthy society as an individual right.

According to legalization advocates the law enforcement approach, as well as the use of punitive and repressive measures, has led to violence, corruption of public officials and a significant increase in crime. It is true that levels of violence, general crime, and -- to a lesser extent -- corruption of public officials, have increased in the past 20 years. We can tie these trends directly or indirectly to legal or illegal drug abuse. However, to suggest that the increase in crime levels is caused by the illegality of some substances or marketing practices, stretches logic to the breaking point. It requires that you accept the implausible claim that individuals who choose to use or distribute drugs and subsequently, become involved in additional unlawful activities; somehow bear no responsibility. The government is blamed because it has made the substance illegal, difficult to obtain or expensive.

This argument is naive. One reason people use mind-altering drugs is because they want to feel good. Individuals continue use drugs because they want to or until such a time they lose control over their lives. Up to this point, use of drugs is strictly voluntary. The inexorable drift to addiction on the part of some drug users is the result of a multitude of individual choices made over time.

The violence and criminal behavior exhibited by people under the influence of drugs are not motivated by legal sanctions. The law, per se, does not cause their behavior. Individuals choose their behavior. If that behavior violates a law, harms another person, or corrupts a public official, it is not reasonable to blame the law. We have not yet blamed the law in the case of the bank robber, wife beater or shoplifter. In reality, most individuals involved in criminal activity are either oblivious to or contemptuous of the law. Social rules are for other people, not for them. In our experience, there are few drug addicts, drug dealers, or drug-induced criminals who would argue that the law or law enforcement caused his behavior. More to the point is that few drug traffickers would go straight if narcotics were legalized.

The proponents of individual rights have made the individual's freedom of choice the centerpiece of their argument for the legalization of drugs. While the law enforcement community acknowledges the importance of individual rights and liberty, it considers the common good to be endangered by the legalization of drugs. I would argue that it is destructive to the common good to legitimize patterns of behavior with drugs by which individuals become a threat to others and an enormous community liability. So I would reject the argument that current drug laws have made the drug problem worse. What has made the problem worse are individuals who have made some very poor choices.

One final note on the corruption of public officials. It is true that present illegal drug activities have provided the wealth needed to corrupt police officers, judges or others involved in the criminal justice system. This should not be viewed, however, as part of the drug problem. It is the result of having public servants who are susceptible to corruption, and hence, not fit for public service. Whether the motivation is drugs, money or power, the problem of corruption is a problem of character. We can solve the problem of public corruption by selecting men and women of good character as public servants.

Proponents of legalization insist that, despite law enforcement's best efforts, the supply and purity of drugs have increased while price has decreased. They argue that law enforcement has failed and the money and energy involved in drug interdiction should be expended elsewhere. The observations by legalization proponents are partially true.

In the past 10 years, the price and purity of both cocaine and heroin have improved. The production and distribution of illegal drugs have increased enormously. The demand for most drugs has modestly increased in North America, but more importantly, the demand has increased world wide. Despite record seizures of illegal drugs, arrests of thousands of drug dealers and the destruction of several cartels; the demand for cocaine and heroin still exceeds supply.

Often, the work of law enforcement agencies in this period was outstanding, but still production continued apace. During this period, law enforcement officers learned that the reducing the supply of drugs was far more complex than they originally thought. It would take far more resources than law enforcement alone could marshal. This was particularly true in our efforts to reduce the production of illegal drugs in countries where cartels have significant political, economic and social influence.

Nonetheless, law enforcement shifted some of its resources to demand-reduction through educational programs such as DARE and SANE. Both enjoyed modest success, but again, the demand for these programs in our schools outstripped the resources of law enforcement to deliver. The efforts of the churches, schools and other community organizations to get involved in demand-reduction programs has not materialized to the extent necessary. Think of the Dutch boy with his finger in the dike waiting for help from the community. This analogy would be correct except that help for the law enforcement community was not forthcoming.

Despite the lack of success in reducing the supply of illegal drugs, there have been some positive benefits to law enforcement efforts in the past decade. First, the drug problem would have been worse had it not been for our vigorous reduction efforts. Secondly, it has also shown that the availability cheaper drugs does not lead to a lessening of crime, as drug-related crime rates during this period have soared. Third, we have exposed the illegal drug industry as sophisticated, complex and profitable. The industry is quite capable of influencing demand, producing, and distributing a product under extreme duress as well as influencing the political process in drug-producing countries. The financial power and business sophistication of the drug cartels easily matches that of the tobacco companies. Their political power is similar to the old political machine and their ruthlessness makes the La Cosa Nostra look like choirboys. Looking back, it seems terribly naive that we thought we could eliminate the problem with just a few thousand local and federal officers and only a few hundred Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) agents by working with police in foreign countries.

Since law enforcement has failed to eradicate the supply of illegal drugs, should we then change the social policies or law enforcement policies regarding either drug supply or demand? In my opinion, we would make a serious mistake if we shifted the monies spent on eliminating the supply of drugs to either drug demand-reduction or rehabilitation programs. First, the amount we spend on law enforcement supply-reduction programs is relatively small and would not make much of a difference in demand-reduction efforts. Second, the monies we do spend in the effort to reduce the drug supply are cost-effective. That is, we do seize large quantities of drugs and assets. We are successful in disrupting the supply of drugs to the marketplace and we effectively remind users, dealers, and cartels that their activities are unlawful and we will prosecute them. Third, the arrest of a drug abuser is usually the first step toward drug rehabilitation. While, it might be better if addicts did not have to be arrested before they sought treatment, the fact of the matter is that addicts have no concept that they have an out of control problem. It takes a dramatic event in their lives to persuade them to seek help. Arrest is usually dramatic. Fourth, law enforcement continues to develop more ways to thwart drug distribution and drug use. Perhaps, we will find more answers in high technology or new educational programs. While it can be argued that some police officers have become burned out in the struggle, there are still more than enough officers willing to do the work. I suspect this is because the police know firsthand the consequences of drug use. They also know there is no other reasonable alternative.

Law enforcement organizations are the visible arm of a populace that have forbidden the sale and use of illegal drugs. They are willing to prosecute those who do not obey the law. So, while we have not been as successful as we had hoped in recent years, to abandon our efforts now would be tantamount to losing our will. This would make a mockery of our traditional beliefs. The average American is quite willing to stay the course. It may take many more years to bring the epidemic of drug use under control. The alternative is, however, to surrender a society built on a foundation of law to the forces of anarchy.

Advocates of legalization argue that if we repealed the laws that currently make the production, distribution, purchase, and consumption of drugs illegal, we would reduce the number of crimes. This is not only misleading but untrue. The issue is whether repeal, as advocates claim, would take the profit out of drug dealing and, in turn result in less drug violence. We believe the answer is no. Unless legalization proponents intend to sell any drug, to any person, at any time, in any amount desired, then a black market for drugs -- and the attendant problems of crime and violence -- will continue to exist. If drugs are freely available in the legal market and present addiction rates are maintained, it is reasonable to expect that the number of persons and the amount of drugs dispensed in the illegal market will increase. We now know the use of some drugs such as cocaine, crack, PCP and ICE cause serious mental problems, including a propensity for violence. So any short-term reduction of crime associated with drug distribution would be rapidly negated by the increase in the number of drug users. As stated before, the cost of drugs does cause some crime because users try to get money to feed their habit. The numbers and severity of these crimes, however, does not approach the level of violence and criminality of those under the influence of drugs.

The argument that legalization would reduce the cost of drugs rests on the assumption that government can manufacture and distribute drugs more efficiently than the present illegal system, thus making drugs cheaper. Cheap drugs should, the argument states, reduce the necessity to commit crimes to finance drug purchases. Both of these assumptions are in error.

First, it is doubtful that the government could compete against the present illegal system of distribution, particularly if the illegal system chose to compete with the government. The current cost to produce a kilogram of cocaine is about $300. A kilogram of cocaine sells on the streets of Canada or the United States for $15,000 to $30,000. Today, the price of cocaine is set by the cocaine cartel and is not subject to usual market forces -- that is the nature of a cartel. Firmly in control of supplies, enjoying a huge profit margin, and not burdened by the bureaucracy that would be required by government market participation, the cartels would make competitive pricing by government very difficult.

In conclusion, if the number of abusers increased as a result of legalization, then the amount of crime committed by users/distributors would also increase. Any reduction of violent crime achieved by the availability of inexpensive narcotics through government distribution would be negated by an increase in the number of drug users. The number of crimes such as assault, child abuse, and violence committed routinely by drug users would tend to increase as the drugs became more readily available. This is a lesson we have learned from our experience with alcohol abuse. It need not be repeated.

It should also be noted here that drug abuse causes a far greater range of problems to society and individuals than just crime or violence. While this article may focus on crime and violence, the reader should also add the problems and costs of mental disorders, youth suicides, the spread of the HIV virus, runaway children, prostitution, single parent families, child abuse, loss of productivity, health care costs and homelessness to the problem of drug abuse. While the problem of crime associated with drug abuse is serious, it is by no means the only problem associated with the misuse of both legal and illegal drugs.

Proponents of legalization estimate the cost of law enforcement in regard to the drug problem at about $15 billion annually. They suggest this money could be better spent on drug rehabilitation programs. Perhaps it would be best to place this dollar figure in context with other public expenditures. We probably spend an equal amount keeping our fleet of aircraft carriers afloat; we spend three times as much on cosmetics; and about one-third of the amount for electricity to keep our air conditioners running. I would estimate that we only have about 10,000 DEA, FBI, state and local police working on the drug problem full-time. If one compares this to the fact we have 18,000 TWA flight attendants, 12,000 United Airlines pilots and more than 10,000 State Farm Insurance Agents in the United States; it should indicate law enforcement is not over-staffed.

In fact at every level of law enforcement, funding is a serious problem. During the 1994 Fiscal Year the federal government actually cut the number of FBI and DEA personnel; significantly reduced the budget of the drug czar; and cut the assistance of the military in regard to drug interdiction efforts. This from an administration that labels itself as anti-crime and pro-law enforcement. Of course, if you subtract the dollar amount of the assets seized from drug dealers during the year, the overall dollar amount expended on law enforcement is reasonably modest.

The law enforcement community would certainly endorse building more drug treatment centers and is already working to build community support for such projects. Considering the gravity of the drug problem, the law enforcement community believes that an informed public would support the allocation of funds to build adequate drug treatment centers without sacrificing our enforcement efforts. Since this is happening in the United States and Canada, it would tend support our contention that the public is quite willing to help with treatment without yielding on the illegality of drug use or the cost of law enforcement. Protection of the public by law enforcement is not competition with drug education and treatment; these purposes are not a zero-sum game.

Most proponents of legalization suggest that it would not lead to dramatic rise in drug abuse. But even Nadelmann suggested this might risky when he stated, "It is thus impossible to predict whether legalization would lead to greater levels of drug abuse, and exact comparable to most of alcohol and tobacco abuse." Faced with what has happened with alcohol and tobacco abuse after sanctions were lifted on those substances, it difficult to understand why it is impossible to predict the consequences of legalization of illicit drugs. Other historical examples showed what can happen when dangerous substances are not controlled. China's experience with opium from 1830 to 1930 is revealing. The Moslem Empire of the 11th century, the Inca Indians, the Japanese, and the Egyptians all experienced significant drug dependency problems in their histories. The British significantly failed in their recent attempt to control heroin abuse through the medical process. We should also remember that morphine and cocaine were readily available in the form of patent medicines after the Civil War. The result was that America experienced a drug abuse problem similar in scope to what we see today. In general terms, most societies throughout history have had problems with drugs or drug abuse. Those societies that solved the problem did so in the same fashion we are trying today.

You can also draw relevant information from the level of abuse of currently legal drugs such as Valium. Our experience with methaqualone (quaaludes), oxycondone (Percodan) and hydromorphone (Dilaudid) gives sufficient evidence that the control of legal drugs is difficult, expensive and not always successful. In each case, the drug has been widely abused, despite the prescription process. Illegally diverted or manufactured substances have found their way into the black market. All these facts show that if presently illicit drugs were legalized, whether they were distributed by the private or the public sector, people disposed to drug use would use them. Generalized use could rise, and the illegal means of meeting demand would continue.

Finally, the experiment the Americans conducted with Prohibition is, generally, remembered as a failure and, after a few years, the amendment was repealed. Actually, it was not a total failure as per capita alcohol consumption dropped significantly during those years. After the repeal consumption levels rose to their former levels. Since that time, we have had millions of alcoholics who destroyed themselves; made life miserable for their families; and killed thousands of innocent people on the highways. It is difficult to understand, when faced with the plague of alcohol we have struggled with over the past fifty years, why anyone in their right mind would even consider the legalization of substances that are as dangerous and, in most cases, far more destructive to the human condition than alcohol.

Give consideration to the claim that illicit drugs are not, and would not, become as popular as tobacco and alcohol. This is a hazardous assumption. Given the facts that most narcotics give the user a euphoric feeling and that drug traffickers have shown themselves to be extremely shrewd at marketing strategies, it would be prudent to assume drug demand would increase upon legalization. Much more important than legalization is mobilizing community pressure against all forms of drug abuse, as is being done with tobacco and alcohol.

Legalization would not result in millions of rushing out to buy and use drugs. I would predict there would be a modest increase in the number of adult users, but a significant increase in the number of children experimenting with drugs. Since most of the current illegal drugs are most harmful to the brain, it is disturbing to think our society would willingly offer this type of experimentation to the young who are not yet fully capable of making informed decisions.

In conclusion, legalization promises no improvement in our drug abuse problem and, unnecessarily, risks an increase of drug abuse. Illicit Drugs Are Not as Dangerous as Believed

Legalization arguments depend on two additional assumptions: first, that illicit drugs are not as dangerous as is commonly believed, and second, that since some illicit drugs are highly dangerous, they are not likely to be popular. With respect to the first assumption, it is enough to say the medical community disagrees, as does every police officer, because they routinely come into contact with people debilitated by drugs from marijuana to Crack. The claim that illicit drugs are not dangerous falls of its own weight in the face of experience. The medical research community admits that the current progress of research is insufficient to say exactly how dangerous illicit drugs are to physical and mental health. Funding for additional medical research should be a high priority so that they can grasp the full measure of risk. For the present, we have enough information from emergency room and morgue records, accident statistics, and mental health professionals to know that the dangers are real. As drug epidemics ebb and flow, and new substances are introduced into the marketplace, we tend to neglect such evidence. It was just a few years ago that cocaine was thought by many to be safe and non-addicting. The early studies of marijuana indicated some potential long-term health hazards. Most of these studies, however, were done with samples that contained half the THC now present in the sinsemilla and hydroponic varieties of marijuana. Current research tends to support the hypothesis that marijuana is a significant health hazard and has a debilitating effect on motor skills. These are skills used in driving, flying or handling a locomotive. The consequences of these types of motor impairment have become all too familiar.

The claim that illicit drugs are not as dangerous as believed is wrong, and those who diminish the realism of the debate about legalization are wrong too!

There is no question, or argument, about addiction being a health problem. There may be some question about whether or not the public should pay for the rehabilitation of an individual who is drug dependent through his/her own actions. But, when one considers the only other alternative to rehabilitation is prison time, it has to be agreed that rehabilitation is, on the surface, a much cheaper alternative. This argument depends of the success rate of rehabilitation, which, at the present time, is not encouragingly high. But, most observers would agree that the success of incarceration is not particularly high either. In my opinion, most criminal justice personnel would support the concept of rehabilitation for offenders if no violence were involved, the individual clearly had a drug problem, and the offender was not an individual who had a history of other serious offenses. This alternative could be offered on a one time basis and, I think, would be better than processing the offender within the criminal justice system. However, we should be aware that in adopting a social policy of this type, it would be the first time -- as a matter of social policy -- we have not held the individual responsible for actions that are against the law. To date, our society has not done this with most criminals, smokers, alcoholics, or drug abusers. We have, however, tried to alleviate the problem of unwanted pregnancies through public financing of abortions. Through public welfare we have also tried to eliminate other problems associated with poverty. The success of these programs has been limited except for those who profit from their administration. So, we have tried some alternative programs. The essential question is: What other choices do we have? At present, the answer is none. Therefore, with reluctance, I would say this is not a time for philosophical debate! We can sort out the philosophical arguments later. We have fooled around with the problem of drug abuse too long and the list of innocent victims who bear the consequences of our inaction is virtually endless. Clearly, we must find alternative ways to treat those who are drug dependent before more lose control of their lives. They imperil us all by their dysfunctional behavior.

In my view, the proponents of legalization have not made a case for the freedom of individuals to choose to use illicit drugs -- regardless of the consequences. I believe the threat of intemperate drug use, whether legal or illegal, is a significant threat to our common welfare. The problem incurred by removing current sanctions would only make the threat more pronounced. We should protect ourselves, by legislation, where sanctions meet the combined test of common sense and the constitutions of the United States and Canada.

It is interesting that those making an argument for the legalization of illicit drugs have not, recently, made similar arguments on behalf of the common drunk. The drunk has become the leper in our society because of his/her behavior while intoxicated. The alcoholic is no longer considered, in some quarters, to be without responsibility for his conduct. His conduct is in violation of the standards of common decency. Being drunk is not given any weight as an excuse for violent or abusive behavior. Our system of justice is punishing the drunk driver more severely than ever before. Where are the defenders of the drunk? Where are the defenders of the smoker these days? Simply put, staunch defenders of the drunk and the smoker are gone because many have recognized that tolerance has adverse affects on the individual and society. Laws have been strengthened and the sanctions of custom are being used to discourage consumption.

While some commentators would suggest the problem of drug abuse is made worse by the repressive measures of the criminal justice system, it is more reasonable to assume that the underlying cause of our problems lays within ourselves. Whether the causes reflect an absence of high personal standards, greed, the inability to cope with rapid change, or involuntary confinement to poverty, we must come to grips with the fact that a large number of people in our culture turn to drugs for relief. Law enforcement cannot address these basic problems alone. Considering the nature and the complexities of the underlying problems, it is obvious to us that the institutions of the family, education, religion, business, industry, media, and government all have crucial stakes in the solution. Drug abuse in North American is no longer someone else's problem, it is a problem that each of us faces every day!

We need not haggle over how much each of us should do to bring the problem under control. We should not vilify those who suggest a different approach, or pass additional legislation in a hysterical atmosphere. This is a time to decide our best means and remedies for facing the problems, and move, forthrightly, to reduce the problem to tolerable levels. For the short term, the law enforcement community hopes to continue to maintain reasonable and prudent pressure on supply-interdiction and vigorous enforcement of the existing laws. At the same time, they hope to continue to develop demand-reduction programs. This will buy time so that more solutions can be developed and more players brought into the contest. In this regard, the law enforcement community should stand ready to share our knowledge, resources, and dedication to solving the problem with any institution, public or private, at any time.

We have made mistakes have in our attempts and strategies to control drug abuse. Most mistakes were made in good faith, and many have been corrected. Still, agencies need to develop ways to work collaboratively. While competition is healthy, it is time to put away the rivalry of the past. If we do not put our insatiable quest for credit and status aside, then, this society will render a harsh judgment. We will have squandered the trust they have placed on us. It is also time for the mass media, the armchair critics, the educators, and all those who have a stake to begin reading from the same sheet of music. All of us should be sensitive to criticism from any quarter, but rather than dwell on finding scapegoats, we really should be working together -- as men and women of good faith -- in an attempt to safeguard present and future generations. Controlling the problems of narcotics will take a long time. It is going to be as simple -- or ostensibly as easy -- as the mere legalization of illicit drugs.

As we continue this struggle against drug abuse it is wise to bear in mind George Santayana's line in Life of Reason, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

The National Executive Institute Associates Leadership Bulletin editor is Edward J. Tully. He served with the FBI as a Special Agent from 1962 to 1993. He is presently the Executive Director of the National Executive Institute Associates and the Major City Chiefs. You can reach him via e-mail at tullye@aol.com or by writing to 308 Altoona Drive, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401