ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, February 7, 1996 TAG: 9602070013
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
COLUMN: Cal Thomas
SOURCE: CAL THOMAS
WILLIAM F. Buckley Jr. and several essayists make a strong case in the Feb. 12 National Review for declaring the war on drugs lost and retreating from unsuccessful attempts stop drug use.
Arguing from a utilitarian position, Buckley and company correctly note that we are spending too much (an estimated $75 billion annually) for too little. Nearly half those in prison are there for drug-related offenses, many for simple possession.
The core arguments by Buckley and the others are that prohibition of drugs has failed more miserably than the '20s Prohibition, that the cost to taxpayers is not worth it, that politicians mislead the public by ``demagoging'' about drugs while knowing they can do little about them, that prison costs could be sharply reduced if drugs were decriminalized, that drugs harm only the person who uses them, and that a ``federal drugstore'' could control and dispense drugs to those who want them, driving down prices and removing the criminal sting from the drug trade.
The arguments are worth considering. Hard-core drug users are a tiny minority of the population. Casual drug users pose no threat to the country, yet they are often pursued and prosecuted with the same zeal as dealers. Warrantless seizures of property, even during searches that turn up minor drug infractions, may violate the Constitution.
There are two problems with this reasoning. One is the utilitarian approach to public policy. Should the purpose of law be to achieve goals that benefit only the well-off and strong? Are cause and effect the only criteria by which public policy and the validity of laws should be judged? Should the law fit behavior and compliance or should law shape them?
By the standard argued in National Review (which is no standard), Brown vs. Board of Education was bad law because in 1954 substantial numbers of Americans believed in segregated schools. And the pro-life Buckley would lose his philosophical legs on abortion because of those who say we can't go back to outlawing (or at least restricting) the procedure because too many have had them and too many are used to being able to get one if they want.
In the case of drugs, if society views the human body as merely a more complicated evolutionary product than a cabbage, then by all means, let's dispense with anti-drug laws and save money for those of us who are not addicted, who have no interest in drugs and who would like to take nighttime walks through our cities. But if our bodies are ``temples of God,'' and if laws are for the purpose of restricting behavior that damages the temples of those who are not constrained by a higher power, then anti-drug laws have merit.
The second problem is where this line of argument leads. What else will be compromised if drug laws are repealed? Euthanasia? Same-sex marriages? Do those wishing to do away with laws against drugs have any irreducible minimums, and on what are they based? Or is everything negotiable, including moral principles?
The war we've lost is not against drugs but against depravity. Cowardice has come at the point of attack against foundational principles of right vs. wrong and virtue vs. vice. Every victory by the forces aligned against virtue has produced retreat and defeat by a side that refuses to stand and fight. Pragmatists want the benefit of standing for principle without getting bloody or even dirty. They buy their purple hearts at the flea market rather than earn them on the field of battle.
But let's try their experiment for, say, five years. Legalize all drugs, empty the prisons of drug criminals, make drugs available at controlled prices only to current addicts and offer treatment for those who want to be rid of them. Measure the results and then consider whether to continue the policy.
The National Review essayists may be right, but they should also consider Charles Kesler's introduction to the Buckley-edited collection of essays on conservatism, ``Keeping the Tablets'': ``Without moral principles for prudence to serve ... prudence is left on its own, like the pilot of a ship whose orders are to sail, but without any prescribed destination. The result is that the wind and currents take the helm.''
- Los Angeles Times Syndicate
LENGTH: Medium: 77 linesby CNB