. 
This article originally appeared in the inaugural edition, Vol. I - #1, of"Liberty's Torch" on Sept. 2, 2011
The “War on Drugs” began 41 years ago with enactment of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. It granted the Federal Government power to regulate the manufacture, importation, possession, use and distribution of drugs as it saw fit. The Nixon Administration justified this legislation as a commitment to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, a treaty the U.S. itself sponsored in the U.N.
As a result, the United States is now mired in an increasingly expensive and unsuccessful effort to suppress the production, sale and personal use of substances listed on one of the five “Substance Schedules” the Federal Government maintains. These efforts mistakenly rely on the presumed deterrent effect of the criminal justice system in regulating personal behavior. We seem not yet ready to accept “failure” as the result of these efforts - and yet, we cannot call the steadily-increasing social and financial burden upon the United States and its taxpayers a success.
One of the frequent arguments of proponents favoring easing or abolishing the current programs that regulate drug use compares today's situation with that of the 13 years between 1920 and 1933 known as “Prohibition.” The 18th Amendment to the Constitution prohibited the production, distribution and sale of alcoholic beverages.
Similarly, the 1970 federal statutes prohibit the production, distribution and sale of Schedule I substances. The one major difference is that, unlike today's criminalization of individual use of these drugs, during Prohibition, personal consumption of alcohol was neither banned nor criminalized under the 18th Amendment. This difference has relegated a large number of citizens exercising personal choice to the criminal class. Their incarceration is a public burden. Prohibition failed in the early 20th century with consequences we shall examine in another installment in this series.
We should have seen that the “War on Drugs” would also fail before it even started. Both adventures are glaring examples of society's efforts to skirt its responsibility to correctly address the constitutional right to personal freedom while, at the same time, guaranteeing society as a whole protection from the untoward consequences of individual behavior on the road to self-abuse.
A cursory examination of the inmate rolls in today's prison system reveals a disproportionate percentage of the system's population incarcerated for criminalized personal choices stemming from the use of Schedule I substances. The need to question the fruitless social, political and economic burden the revolving-door criminal justice system represents has become increasingly evident, particularly in light of its contribution to our unsustainable public debt. More importantly, there is a need to question just how appropriate (read “constitutionally correct” here if you will) the efforts to regulate activities of a personal nature really are.
Make no mistake about it. The personal choice to indulge in habits that include the consumption of intoxicating substances and the protection our society must afford the individual to do so does not constitute an endorsement of this behavior as harmless. We cannot ignore the consequences and potential costs to society imposed by persons who choose behave self-destructively. The right to indulge in personal acts does not relieve the actor of the responsibility to limit such behavior when it begins to infringe on the personal freedoms and liberties of those with whom he or she must inevitably interact. Very simply put, the individual choice to act in a personally destructive nature must cease where such behavior infringes upon the freedom of others to do differently in the public theater. Less simple is the task of how to frame this in a social context.
Our efforts to “internationalize” the war on drugs have relegated the U.S. Constitution as guarantor of personal freedoms to a backseat role behind our U.N. sponsorship of a series of international treaties that engage other members of the international community as partners in our fruitless effort. Unlike Prohibition, which for the most part remained contained within our own borders, with the “War on Drugs” we have sponsored a series of international agreements that, far from producing the desired results, have fostered the growth of a ruthless class of organized criminals whose purpose is to make a profit from the resulting chaos.
With the “War on Drugs,” we have refused to address an important domestic social issue rationally. In lieu of this we have invited (shall we better say “strong-armed”?) neighboring countries to share responsibility for our own internal social issues. Some of the nations we have engaged in this effort now suffer unforeseen and unintended consequences as a result. We need to stop thinking in terms of “legalizing” drugs and focus more precisely on “decriminalizing” what is fundamentally a personal choice.
To come: Taking a closer look at the destructive consequences, both domestically and internationally, of the path we have chosen.
Peter Aras grew up in the Ohio Midwest, and recently located to Cheyenne after 30 years of residence in several Latin American countries; his email is artiomovas@gmail.com.
