Pubdate: Sat, 12 May 2001 Source: Washington Post (DC) Copyright: 2001 The Washington Post Company Contact: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/491 Authors: Jamie Fellner, Sara Rose and Henry Kopel Note: 2 PUB LTEs, 1 LTE Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n803/a11.html, http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n812/a06.html, http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n788/a10.html WEIGHING IN ON THE DRUG WAR Contrary to what William Bennett suggests ["A Superb Choice for Drug Czar," op-ed, May 7], racial disparities in the nation's war on drugs do not reflect racial differences in drug offending. Government data indicate there are five times as many white drug users as black (which is not surprising given the similar rates of drug use between whites and blacks and the vastly greater number of whites in the population). Moreover, more than twice as many whites as blacks have used crack cocaine and almost nine times as many have used powder cocaine. All available data also suggest that drug selling is not concentrated in one race: Indeed, studies suggest most retail drug transactions are intra-racial, i.e., people tend to buy drugs from someone of the same race. Why then do blacks constitute 62.7 percent of all drug offenders admitted to state prisons? And why are black men sent to state prison on drug charges at 13.4 times the rate of white men? The racially disproportionate nature of the war on drugs is not just devastating to black Americans. It contradicts faith in the principles of justice and equal protection of the laws that should be the bedrock of any constitutional democracy -- and it undermines faith among all races in the fairness and efficacy of the criminal justice system. Jamie Fellner The writer is an associate counsel at Human Rights Watch. ~~~ Joseph Califano wonders why the United States is not celebrating a 50 percent drop in drug use since 1980, saying, "If teen pregnancy, the incidence of new AIDS cases, domestic violence or breast cancer had plummeted 50 percent, corks would be popping across the nation in celebration" ["Learning From Robert Downey Jr.," op-ed, May 8]. I, for one, do not think people would be celebrating a 50 percent drop in teen pregnancies or AIDS cases if we achieved that number by criminalizing teenage pregnancy or AIDS and throwing such offenders in jail. Not only would this constitute an assault on our basic human rights, it would make the problems we are trying to remedy that much harder. What teenage girl is going to get prenatal care if she knows her condition is criminal? How many people will get tested for AIDS if a positive result means jail time? Califano's argument reflects the drug war hawks' belief that the only thing that matters is the numbers. So what if the war on drugs has cost us billions of dollars, weakened our constitutional rights, created more hard-core addicts, made drugs cheaper, purer and more available and locked millions of nonviolent offenders behind bars? The number of casual users is down 50 percent in 20 years! Pass the champagne. Sara Rose ~~~ In "The Delusional Drug War" [op-ed, May 4], William Raspberry endorsed the drug legalization efforts of Ethan Nadelman and the Lindesmith Center. Apparently, Raspberry and Nadelman would have us legalize, regulate and tax the purchase and use of drugs such as cocaine, heroin and PCP, while relying on public education efforts to persuade drug addicts to voluntarily enter treatment programs. As someone who has spent several years in the District prosecuting drug crimes and a variety of other crimes that are often blamed on drugs -- from brutal violence to all kinds of frauds and property crimes -- I have some questions for Raspberry and Nadelman. First: What do they think gets most people into drug treatment? Of the thousands of street-corner drug cases prosecuted each year in D.C. Superior Court, few defendants had ever sought drug treatment outside the context of a criminal sentence. An arrest, and the authority of a criminal court judge, are what get most people into treatment. Second: Does Raspberry really believe that "much of the harm we attribute to drugs . . . results not from the drugs themselves, but from our efforts to prohibit drugs"? The muggings, robberies and home invasions by addicts who need money for their next high and whose drug use renders them unemployable? The sexual assaults by users whose conscience and self-restraint disappear when they are high? The abuse and neglect of children by drugged-out parents? Does Raspberry believe these harms would go away in a legal, regulated market for cocaine, heroin and PCP? Third: What makes Raspberry so confident that a government-regulated market for such drugs as cocaine and heroin would eliminate competition from violent, illegal drug crews? After all, the illegal crews would have the huge cost advantages of not paying any business taxes or employee Social Security taxes, and of not having to follow any labor, safety or quality control laws. Finally: Why would drug use and addiction -- and all their attendant harms - -- not become more common when the stigma of illegality has been lifted and the fear of being arrested is eliminated? Are parents and teachers likely to find it easier to persuade teenagers not to try cocaine or heroin after they are made legal? Legalization would only make a tragic situation worse: an increase in the number of drug users; a decrease in the number of addicts getting treatment; a corresponding increase in violence and property crimes by drug users; and the persistence of drug crews' turf wars. As former Supreme Court justice Arthur Goldberg once warned in another context, "while the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact." That should be equally true of our efforts to fashion fair and effective drug policies. Henry Kopel - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D