Obvious statements and obvious conclusions do not always go hand in hand: The rooster crows and the sun comes up. Therefore, the rooster makes the sun rise.
Here is an obvious statement of truth from the Department of Justice: "Drug users in the general population are more likely than nonusers to commit crimes."
Justice points to a 1991 survey -- among other data -- to support this claim. The survey shows that adult respondents who used marijuana or cocaine were much more likely to commit crimes of all types -- violent, property or drug crimes -- than those who did not use substances.
"Experience in the major cities," according to Thomas A. Constantine, Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, "has shown that arresting individuals who are responsible for drug trafficking and drug-related violence can and does have a positive result on overall crime rates."
The obvious solution is to lock up the drug users. And so we have. Of the 271,323 people in jail on drug charges, 102,467 -- nearly 40 percent -- are there for possession.
Of course, the fallacy of the logic is equally obvious: traffic speeders, jaywalkers, drinkers, perhaps even smokers are more apt than other people to commit crimes.
Apparently, the DOJ standard for drug users is not so much to lock them up for what they have done to themselves -- consume, inject or inhale drugs -- but for what they might do to the rest of us, which truly is a new twist to jurisprudence. It is preemptive justice.
But one glitch in the theory that violent crime offenders are usually drug users is the 1991 survey of incarcerated offenders. Asked if they were under the influence of any substance (including alcohol) when they committed their crimes, drug offenders, robbers and burglars very often said yes, (up to 80 percent). Whereas those in jail for homicide or assault were less likely to report being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, (up to 50 percent).
Alcohol is legal and involved in many crimes. A 1992 survey of victims found that of the 50 percent of victims who could determine if their offender was under the influence of a substance, 60 percent reported alcohol not combined with other drugs. One-fifth of the victims reported drugs alone or in combination with alcohol.
Therefore, even if we exclude the speeders, jaywalkers and the like, and simply concentrate on the drinkers, the statistics prove that their incarceration will reduce crime. In fact, imprisoning drinkers would reduce crime far more than does imprisoning drug users.
Preemptive justice has become the standard in the narrow area of drug use, and if we truly believe it is a constitutionally acceptable standard, then it is time to cast the net wider. Let's start by locking up the drinkers. Crime will diminish -- so will our liberty.
-- Jack Anderson and Douglas Cohn are columnists for United Feature Syndicate.
No comments
Commenting is turned off for this story.