Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, December 9, 1993 TAG: 9404220013
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A22 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
It hasn't helped that her boss, President Clinton, skittishly put distance between himself and her remarks, rather than simply accept them for the thoughtful and provocative observations that they are.
If you listened only to the critics, you'd never know that Elders, in answering a question during an appearance at the National Press Club:
Accompanied her point that legalizing drugs would reduce crime (an incontrovertible point, since it's a matter of how you define "crime") with a strong denunciation of drug abuse.
Did not endorse drug legalization (contrary to the erroneous front-page headline in this newspaper), but said only that it was worth a look, though "I don't know all of the ramifications."
Was talking about an idea that, while certainly not mainstream, is hardly radical - and is promoted these days by a number of prominent conservatives, including William F. Buckley Jr., Milton Friedman and others, as well as by some big-city mayors.
Nevertheless, such eminent worthies as the blustery former drug czar William Bennett (great job, Bill, your way really solved the problem), and Republican Sens. Don Nickles of Oklahoma and Orrin Hatch of Utah, seem intent on misstating Elders' comments and misrepresenting her views.
In unloading on the surgeon general, they may just be playing the old Washington game of exploiting a perceived political opening. But the fact that Elders' comments, so innocuous on their face, should be seen to provide an opening suggests something more. It suggests an appetite for a political correctness that not merely opposes an idea but will brook not even a mention that the idea is out there.
The case for drug legalization is interesting but - so far, anyway - less than compelling. The best arguments for it are the failures of current policy, under which the illicit drug trade continues to flourish despite spending billions on interdiction while filling America's jails and prisons with people convicted of drug-related offenses.
Removing some of the profit of a thriving illegal market - while reducing the prices of drugs craved by addicts - would also, arguably, reduce the crime associated with drugs, including violent crime.
Of course, outlining the failures of one policy doesn't in itself show that another policy would be as good or better. The state of Alaska, for example, has retreated from its decriminalization of marijuana. At a minimum, any effort to legalize or decriminalize now-illegal drugs should be tested carefully in several jurisdictions before it becomes national policy.
Meanwhile, though, the legalization advocates are correct in arguing that the current "war" on drugs is doomed to fail because it underplays the importance of abuse prevention and health care.
Focusing on drug abuse as a public-health rather than a crime problem would not be easy or inexpensive. If drugs were legalized, there might be a temptation to forget about the costly drug-prevention, education and treatment programs that would become all the more important in the fight against drug abuse. The enormous risks and costs inherent in legalization should not be underestimated.
But neither should the option remain beyond the bounds of discussion and debate. Those who would reprimand or fire a public official simply for raising the idea of legalization or for suggesting that it be studied as an alternative drug-fighting strategy raise more questions about themselves than they do about their target.
Have they forgotten that the goal of drug policy isn't to make criminals, but to reduce drug abuse?
Memo: ***CORRECTION***