
          Hooked on the Drug Problem
          By Dreger, Ralph MasonRalph Mason Dreger
          Vol. 11, No. 4, 1989, pp. 7-8
          
          How do we fight the drug problem? Well, first, it must be
recognized that it is not "the drug problem," but a whole congeries of
problems:
                           the growing in other countries of crops of what we call "illicit drugs" but which are the sole
sustenance of multitudes of farmers;the creation of "narco-millionaires" in Columbia, Peru and
elsewhere;the illegal importation and/or growing of drugs here (such as
U.S.-grown marijuana)the shipment of drugs through other countries (as in the
Bush-Noriega connection);the impotence of law enforcement agencies that are overwhelmed
in attempting to combat drugs;the high profits from smuggling and "dealing" on our
streets;the extreme poverty in the midst of extreme plenty, as an
underclass looks with envy on prosperous drug dealers, and the
flaunting of the leisure class in the face of the unemployed and
underemployed;the easy access to "licit" drugs (Tylenol, alcohol, Demarol)
for relief of mental or physical pain or production of pleasurethe breakdown of families;the use of long sentence and capital punishment for street
criminals juxtaposed against plush federal prisons (or probation and
restitution) for white collar criminals;and so on.
          The "Drug Problem" is such a host of related issues that it is an
almost impossible morass. As such, "it" has no simple solution.
          How then do we fight the drug problem? Not how we have been
fighting it--or at least not how our governments have been fighting
it. Multiplied millions have been spent, armies of drug fighters
spread from here to the growing regions of Columbia and Peru, and
local law enforcement agencies have been overwhelmed with drug
operatives. The government links anti-Communism with the fight against
drugs even though officials know that in Latin America, Communist
insurgents and the drug kings are mortal enemies who visit murder
campaigns on each other. It is considered "patriotic" to support all
these huge expenditures and extraordinary efforts, to excuse the
unconstitutional actions of the Drug Enforcement Agency and its allies
in the name not only of fighting drugs but of Americanism. The Right
postures about a federal death_penalty for drug kings--a notion which
would be as ineffective against drug traffic as it has been in
deterring murder.
          Observers fairly well agree that the War on Drugs has failed. So
what do we do in response to our evident failure? We appropriate not
millions but billions, we appoint an official "drug czar" (we have had
at least ten called by different names since Nixon began The War), and
we beef-up the same fruitless activities in which we have been
engaging.
          Before offering some suggestions about how to deal with the drug
problem, let me point out some of the human rights violations the War
on Drugs is perpetuating. The DEA itself has acted in ways that are a
"mixture of the illegal and the unscrupulous" (Gierginer,D., "Inside
the DEA," Reason, December, 1986, pp.23-29). On the
merest suspicion of engaging in illegal drug trafficking a person's
entire property can be confiscated, however false the suspicion
actually proves. Law enforcement agencies have been using the
so-called anti-racketeering RICO statute in ways scarcely envisaged by
Congress. Now, all that you own can be taken away from you--and you
have no recourse in law, for that is the law. The police are protected
fully in violating your Fourth Amendment rights, in searching and
seizing upon suspicion alone.
          Let me add one note which demonstrates how the War on Drugs can be
used to undermine people's rights: This spring David Duke introduced
into the Louisiana legislature a bill (which fortunately died in
committee) which had a high note of righteous justification for
promoting the safety and welfare of children and adults.
          The heart of the bill was this: "The legislature hereby
establishes a mandatory drug testing program for adults in public
assistance programs without the requirement of individualized
suspicion." There are some of us who object to mandatory drug
testing programs anyway, with all their errors and invasions of one's
body, except for those directly involved in the safety of the public,
and under very 

restricted circumstances at that. If Mr. Duke's bill is not a direct
contravention of the Fourth Amendment, I do not recognize one. And if
any reader does not know who David Duke is and what he represents, and
what he actually meant by his bill, then it would be well for them to
find out.  I fear that we shall hear more of Mr. Duke and others of
his ilk who have a chance to rise to power on such issues as the War
on Drugs.
          What, then do I advocate to fight the drug problem?
          I urge that drugs be decriminalized and that the country back off
on its present War on Drugs. We are repeatng the vain efforts of
Prohibition.
          It is estimated that one-quarter of the U.S. population uses
illegal drugs. If they wish to do so, and are allowed to do so without
being branded as criminals, all the vast apparatus which is now
spinning its wheels in a vain efforts to stem the flow of drugs can be
disbanded. Police can do the job they are supposed to do without
having to detect whether someone has a fraction of an ounce of
marijuana or cocaine or crack or whatever, or having to put someone in
jail for what would otherwise be considered legitimate activities. Of
course, I am speaking here of search and seizure operations, not of
checking for DWI.
          Police have enough to do just to cope with the ordinary problems in
our society. To ask them to enforce the unenforceable makes their job
virtually impossible, to say nothing of the pressures put upon those
often underpaid and overworked officers in a climate where drug money
flows so freely.
          I would go farther than mere decriminalization of drugs, which is
really only the first step in a genuine fight against the drug
problem. I shall assume only that the monies which now are being
wasted on the War on Drugs will be available for a sensible war. The
next thing is to set up clinics for treatment of addicts, with free
distribution of the substance(s) to which a person is addicted.
          Support services with trained personnel as well as lay helpers from
the several treatment programs, formal and informal, which have grown
up in the last few years would be fully funded. Religious institutions
and networks of the country would be enlisted, not in an attempt to
co-opt religion into a governmental program, but to assist in doing
what a number have been able to do in rehabilitating people.
          Educational programs would, of course, be part of the plan of
dealing with addicts or abusers. But such education would go far
beyond rehabilitation education and become part of the curriculum in
schools and colleges.
          I should go even farther in my War on Drugs. I could suggest that
more research needs to be done as to why people turn to drugs in the
first place. Perhaps there should I be more research, only I think
that enough has been done to enable us to get the general motivational
picture: the need of youth to experiment is surely one reason. Peer
pressure is already well known. Many in poverty seek ways to avoid
despair and hopelessness. The same magical mechanism operating in the
criminal who believes "I can't get caught" is a secondary motivation
after the start along the way of drugs. The general acceptance of the
licit drugs in our society promotes illicit drug use, as young_people
tell their oldsters, "I see no difference between what you are
doing and what I am doing except that what I am doing is artificially
classified as criminal."
          Even though the general picture may be outlined, there may
nevertheless be a need for research in motivation aimed, say, at
specific drugs and their motivational influence or at other problems
not sufficiently understood now. And, yes, such research as shown to
be needed should be well-funded.
          The War on Drugs is not only futile but dreadfully corrosive of our
civil_rights. If you don't like my way to fight drugs, then use your
best ingenuity to devise a better one, one that will not undercut our
Constitution, one that is compassionate and just, and one that will be
reasonably successful.
          
            Ralph Mason Dreger, a former member of the Southern
Regional Council, is professor emeritus of psychology at Louisiana
State University. Council members, life fellows, Associates and other
members of the SRC extended family are invited to submit essays from
The South at Large.
          
        
