The War On Drugs: Just Say 'No More'

By Arianna Huffington, Filed June 1, 2000

You won't find the latest good news about our war in the foreign-news
section of the paper. That's because this war is being fought at home. But
you won't find it in the domestic-news section, either. That's because the
media are barely reporting anything outside the talking points of the
presidential candidates. And George W. Bush and Al Gore would rather talk
about drugs they did or didn't take than mention America's ongoing drug war
-- unless to say that we need to get tougher. Elected officials are usually
the last to agree with the little boy crying out that the emperor wears no
clothes -- or, in this case, that the drug war has been a disaster. But
yesterday's heresies are becoming today's wisdom.

"The most common reaction I get from my colleagues," Rep. Tom Campbell
(R-Calif.), in the vanguard of drug-policy reform, told me, "is 'You're
absolutely right, but, boy, I'm not going to take that risk.' "Rep. Jerrold
Nadler (D-N.Y.) is one who has decided to take the risk. " 'A fanatic is
someone who redoubles his efforts when he's forgotten his purpose,' "he
told me, quoting Santayana. "We need to question policymakers' sanity when
the purpose -- in this case protecting people's health -- is forgotten in
favor of a fanatical pursuit of the drug war."

"We're on the cusp of this debate bursting wide open," said Ethan
Nadelmann, director of the Lindesmith Center, a leading drug-policy
institute. "Drug-policy reform is rapidly emerging as the movement for
political and social justice of the new decade."

An overwhelming majority of Americans now feel that it's time to mobilize
new thinking on our drug problem. According to a recent Zogby poll, 74
percent favor treatment over prison for those convicted of possession. And
when given the chance to express their feelings at the ballot box, voters
across the country -- the ground troops on the side of common sense -- have
repeatedly shown their support for reforming drug policy. In Arizona,
voters have twice approved a measure replacing mandatory incarceration with
treatment, while ballot initiatives making marijuana available for medical
use have been passed in California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Nevada,
Colorado, Maine and Washington, D.C.

State legislatures are following suit. Hawaii recently became the first
state to approve medical marijuana through the legislative process. And
last year, Missouri passed a bill encouraging judges to sentence certain
drug users to community service and treatment facilities rather than jail.

Indeed, it is at the state level that the critical mass for bipartisan drug
reform is emerging. In November, Massachusetts and California ballots will
have groundbreaking initiatives. The Massachusetts initiative requires that
any properties forfeited in drug cases go to education or drug treatment
rather than to police coffers -- a critically important reform if we are to
end our distorted law-enforcement priorities. Meanwhile, in California, the
Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act requires that nonviolent drug
offenders be sent to treatment rather than prison the first two times
they're arrested. Its backers point out that the average cost of
maintaining a prison inmate is $23,406 a year, while the average annual
cost of a drug-treatment program is $4,300.  More evidence of this emerging
critical mass comes, surprisingly, from a growing number of law-enforcement
officials and judges. Although, on second thought, it's not that surprising
since these front-line conscripts have seen the ravages of the war up
close: overflowing prisons, devastated inner-city neighborhoods, the
militarization of our nation's peace officers, ruined lives. "We look back
now at things like judicial enforcement of the fugitive slave laws and
wonder how we could have let that happen," a U.S. District Court judge told
me. "I think many years from now people will look at our current drug laws
that require very long, mandatory minimum sentences for low-level drug
offenders and think this is a comparable kind of injustice."

Even tough-on-crime conservatives like Supreme Court Chief Justice William
Rehnquist are rethinking the mandatory minimum sentences fostered by the
drug-war mind-set. Such sentences "impose unduly harsh punishment for
first-time offenders," said Rehnquist, "and have led to an inordinate
increase in the prison population."

Finally, families of those doing time for drugs have begun to organize.
"The loved ones of the drug war's victims shouldn't be ashamed," said Nora
Callahan, who in 1997 founded the November Coalition to give families of
those serving draconian drug sentences a voice. "The government should be
ashamed because our nation's drug laws are the real culprit." Families
Against Mandatory Minimums, which now has branches in 21 states, was
founded by Julie Stewart after her brother got five years in a federal
prison for possessing three dozen marijuana plants.

College students have opened yet another front in the fight to end the drug
war: battling against an outrageous provision in the 1998 Higher Education
Act that disqualifies young people for federal aid for college if they've
ever been convicted of marijuana possession but not if they've been
convicted of rape, robbery or manslaughter. "It was this bill that got
students active on the drug issue," said Kris Lotlikar, national director
of Students for a Sensible Drug Policy. "They resent having their education
dragged into drug-war politics."

"There is a growing acknowledgment," Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) told me,
"that the drug war hasn't worked." Or as Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) put it:
"The war on drugs is a total failure. It does more harm than good."
Campbell, Nadler, Schakowsky and Paul are still in the minority -- a
minority that includes some pretty high-profile pols, including New Mexico
Gov. Gary Johnson and Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura. But common sense
finally seems to be gaining the edge on demagoguery and pandering. The
government's war on drugs has become a war on its own citizens. It's
heartening to see more and more people crying out that it's time to sue for
peace.