The Drug War

THE DRUG WAR AND THE 14th AMENDMENT

Our Constitution begins by identifying Justice as its primary goal. But what is Justice if it is not equal protection for all people in the eyes of the law? It took us about 80 years to recognize this and pass the 14th Amendment in 1868, stipulating equal protection as a Constitutionally guaranteed right: � no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law". And it took almost another 100 years for it to begin to penetrate the general collective conscience leading to the civil rights movements in the 1960's. A lot has been accomplished over the years. Our comprehension of the inherent injustice of denying equal protection has expanded and matured. Many groups have gained protection from the arbitrary tyrannies of the majority.

But we still seem to be unable to get it right. Consider one of today's most glaring incongruities -- the "drug war". The laws on which it is based persist like an atavistic hangover -- not only hypocritical and senseless, but they purportedly began their reign of terror out of stigmatization and arbitrary discrimination applied to targeted ethnic groups. The marijuana laws initially targeted segments of the Mexican population, the opiate laws targeted pockets of Asian culture on the West coast, and the cocaine laws were seeded by distaste for the music cultures in some of the black communities. Later, driven by hysterical knee jerk over-reactions to the over-indulgences of a few counter-culture groups in the 60's and 70's, these laws were toughened � until in the 80's, they became the "drug war". Thus, the drug war, being probably one of the most egregious examples of the potential tyranny of big government alive today, has its roots in the arbitrary stigmatization of certain groups, necessarily denying them equal protection in the eyes of the law.

To illustrate the hypocrisy with an obvious example, our government permits and subsidizes the production of tobacco and allows the promotion and marketing of its products, while it spends billions prosecuting and incarcerating thousands of people who choose to use, or produce, marijuana. The reason for this disparity supposedly arises from medical considerations. But, tobacco products contain some of the most addicting and lethal drug substances known, annually killing around 400 thousand addicted people in the US alone. No one has reportedly died from marijuana use, and its addicting effects are minimal. Are marijuana users being given equal protection in the context of due process? Obviously, these laws are out of whack with reality and bereft of a rational basis. But they persist due to the strong support of the many vested interests - including the alcohol and tobacco product manufacturers and the illegal drug distribution network. The same juxtaposition of risks illustrating gross discrepancies in reasoning could be applied to numerous other drugs.

Equal protection would seem to inherently require due process. So, in addition to specifying equal protection, the 14th Amendment also states: � "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". If due process has any real meaning it must include basing governmental decisions on a rational process or methodology that is open to vetting by all citizens. If laws are based on blatantly false and arbitrary reasoning, due process is obviously lacking. The drug laws, almost in their entirety, seem to be essentially bereft of any rational methodology that could be conceivably interpreted as due process. Yet hundreds of thousands of people are annually denied life, liberty, and property as a result of their application.

We should acknowledge some apparent truths: the drug laws did not arise, nor are they sustained, by any semblance of due process. They arose largely as a result of the emotionally irrational stigmatization of certain groups of people in the absence of due process without application of equal protection. The drug laws constitute an obscene miscarriage of justice in gross violation of our Constitution's 14th Amendment.

The entire system of drug regulation should be re-engineered. Drugs can justly be regulated without violating Constitutional principles. But to do so would require that all regulations be based on sound reasoning in concert with the medical facts supported by scientific evidence, and, of course, not be designed to discriminate against certain targeted groups. In addition to complying with the basic law of our land, all studies indicate that such changes would save billions of dollars while greatly reducing both violent and property crimes. The savings in part could be much more effectively used for treatment and education regarding the dangers of drug abuse. And dumping this convoluted mess of inconsistencies and hypocrisy would increase local and worldwide respect for our country, our Constitution, and our pursuit of Justice.