By John Dendahl, Chairman, Republican Party of New Mexico

The Albuquerque Tribune – December 23, 1999

In June, Gov. Gary Johnson put his prestige as a high elected official behind those challenging the national War on Drugs.  During a conversation with me, he said something like, "I think illegal drug use is the worst problem facing us today.  Our current policies aren't working and are probably making the situation worse.  We should be discussing alternatives, including decriminalization"  I said I agreed with him.  So began one of New Mexico's top news stories of 1999.

In 1919, the U.S. Constitution was amended to prohibit manufacture, sale, transportation, import or export of "intoxicating liquors."  Many of Prohibition's most ardent supporters soon joined its most dedicated opponents, leading to repeal in less than 15 years.

Prohibition was overtaken by the Law of Unintended Consequences.  Al Capone and his ilk became a wealthy, violent threat to domestic tranquility.  Consumption of alcohol was neither eliminated nor, aside from a brief dip, even reduced.

Were the opponents of Prohibition pro-alcohol?  Some would answer "Certainly," but I think that would be wrong.  This was more a coalition of freedom lovers opposed to Prohibition in the first place, and realists sobered by the pernicious crime it spawned.

The drug war is alcohol Prohibition writ large.  Annual, inflation-adjusted enforcement costs are running at least 200 times those of Prohibition, yet the consensus estimate is only about ten percent of the available drugs are interdicted.  Instead of a few machine-gunnings among rival thugs, we have drug-financed guerilla wars in Colombia and Peru, and broad-daylight murders of a Catholic Cardinal and political leaders in Mexico.

At home, instead of the occasional unconstitutional search, we have law enforcement agencies becoming addicted to property takings (forfeitures) that flout the Constitution's Fifth Amendment.  Children, enticed by money and knowing that juvenile crime is punished with light sentences, are the street pushers of choice, often selling to their impressionable peers: other children, who then turn to burglary or worse.

The list is endless, and the trend is terrifying.  All of this is fueled by an illicit international market, grossing an estimated $300 billion per year, in which we in the U.S. are the dominant buyer group.  Some say demand could be snuffed out by a stepped-up "war" effort.  For example, we could impose universal drug testing with stiff punishment of all users caught in the net.  That won't fly.

We don't need to throw in the towel.  We do need to get smart and heed George Santayana's observation, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

It seems to me the criminal enterprise and substance abuse parts of this situation can and should be considered separately.  As with alcohol during Prohibition, the enormous profitability in drugs arises from their being illegal.  Despite the incorruptibility and dedication of most law enforcement officers, the international criminals making and distributing drugs just keep truckin'.  Almost never are they caught, convicted and executed lawfully (though some die at the hands of their greedy rivals).  What if a change in public policy just dried up the expanding criminal profits buying ever-more-pervasive corruption?

There are some important things that decriminalization does not mean.  For one, use of alcohol and drugs by juveniles is not condoned.  To the contrary, every "decriminalizer" I have talked to supports increased state protection of minors, including more severe criminal penalties for adults who deal to kids.

Decriminalization does not mean barring employers from firing, or refusing to hire, drug users.  The same goes for admissions and internal discipline policies of educational institutions.  Decriminalization does not mean relieving users of strict liability for harm they cause others while under the influence.

Programs underway in other countries, like Switzerland, enable citizens to cope with addiction without resort to black markets and a life of crime.  The models are out there; we need only be sufficiently open-minded to examine and tailor them to fit our society and our needs.

Footnote:  The 1996 national platform of my party, the Republican Party, calls on Americans to step up the drug war, heavily emphasizing interdiction, testing and incarceration.  I share with my party's many other leaders profound concern about drug abuse.  However, I am persuaded that the Prohibition model is inconsistent with our love of liberty.  Perhaps discussion in a spirit of civility, hope and mutual respect will lead others to agree.