Recently, columnist Dana Kelley voiced support for the Bush Administration's anti-drug campaign. Mr. Kelley found their two $3.2 million Superbowl ads just the thing for his tax dollars, part of the billions so far invested in drug prohibition. But guilt, fear, and threat of punishment have not previously and will not in the future accomplish anything toward reducing the harm caused by drugs.

We understand the government's strategy in linking drug use to terrorism – the war on terrorism is popular, and they'd like to spread that popularity onto the increasingly criticized War on Drugs.

While it is true that terrorists have enjoyed financial gain by playing the Drug War Game, virtually none of the gain came from money spent by U.S. kids trying to get high. The opium/heroin derived from Afghan poppy crops is marketed in Europe, as are most Middle Eastern drugs. And besides, any small portion of the Asian or African drug profit that might come from U. S. drug users is overshadowed by money paid directly to terrorists by the U. S. government for playing on the right side of the Drug War Game. Just less than a year ago, we gave $43 million to the Taliban for beating down poppy-farming Afghan peasants, without doubt just one of many similar payments.

We're happy to hear that Mr. Kelley visits our website (www.dpeg.org), where he read a columnist's criticism of the ads. That criticism was well founded. If the Drug War Game came to a screeching halt tomorrow, there would be no black market generating drug trade profits. There would be no reason for our government to donate millions of tax dollars to terrorist organizations. With no money from drug trade, terrorist organizations would be left to survive on the profits they garner from the oil and diamond business.

But perhaps a more serious flaw in the thinking of Mr. Kelley and friends is their inability to distinguish between drug use and drug abuse and their continuing attempt to frame drug use/abuse as a moral failing.

Despite the effort to draw a line around prohibited drugs, no such line exists. If we talk about intoxicating drugs, then we must include alcohol. This rules out drug prohibition as a moral effort to stamp out intoxication. If we talk about the dangers of inhaling smoke, then we must include cigarettes. This rules out drug prohibition as an effort to protect people's health. If we look at the origins of drug prohibition, we find the laws are about racial prejudice more than research, about diverting the temperance movement away from alcohol, about jobs for agency men trained to raid illegal gin joints.

Substance use is not substance abuse. Where "substance" is defined as a consumable material with mind-altering and/or intoxicating effects, substance use is at least as old as humanity and consists of controlled medical, recreational, or spiritual utilization. Substance "abuse" is utilization that is out-of-control to the point that key aspects of a person's life have become neglected, damaged, or otherwise harmed. It is substance "abuse" if the person's actions have become harmful to others or to the property of others. Substance abuse usually involves escalating or excessive dosage levels.

Substance use does not inexorably lead to substance abuse. If it did, over 70 million Americans who have smoked marijuana would now all be smoking crack in an alleyway. About 11 million Americans admit to smoking marijuana within the last month, but less than 2 million Americans have used cocaine in the last month, less than 415,000 have used crack, and less than 210,000 have used heroin. Substance users are largely responsible, hard-working citizens.

Drug warriors enjoy theorizing that based on the alcohol model, we can assume that legal, regulated markets for currently-illegal drugs would escalate violence and crime. This theory sees prohibition as a dam, holding back hordes longing to stick needles in their arms. But anyone who wants prohibited drugs gets them already.

This theory also fails to account for different characteristics of drugs. More than one observer has opined that if Cannabis replaced alcohol as the national recreational drug, violence and car accidents would drop off the charts. Marijuana produces a mild, euphoric intoxication – the user feels relaxed and somewhat passive. No bar fights there, no beating up the wife and kids. Studies show persons intoxicated on marijuana are less likely to have auto accidents than persons intoxicated on alcohol, not that anyone intoxicated should drive.

Virtually all violent crime and human misery – gang wars, murder, theft, assault, and the spread of disease – are harms associated with illegal drugs as a result of prohibition, not the effects of the drugs.

Substance abuse is a health problem, not a moral issue. In our society, where adults supposedly enjoy the freedom of self-determination, substance use can never be eliminated. And when, for reasons of brain chemistry or circumstance, a person slips into substance abuse, the remedy is help and healing for body and mind, not counterproductive guilt and prison time.

Denele Campbell

Denele Campbell is the Executive Director of the Drug Policy Education Group, Inc.

Guest editorial Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 2/26/2002