ment. The government does have angun, however. But — just as duringnProhibition — it is not capable of usingnit to suppress the traffic in substancesnpeople want, whether for good or ill.nThe government cannot suppressnadultery, for example, even thoughnbreaking the marriage covenant, withnits consequent divorce, damaged children,nand other shattered moral values,ndoes even more harm than drugs.nLet’s suppose that, knowing this,nJimmy Carter had launched a War onnInfidelity.nThe Federal Marital EnforcementnAdministrahon — in cooperation withnvice squads at state and local levels —nwould institute national spying, andnimpose long prison sentences on thosencaught. Motels would be under surveillance,nand couples would have to providenproof of marriage to check in.nMail would be opened and phonesnwould be tapped. There would ben800-number informer lines. Evennhouse parties would be watched. Whonknows what could go on?nNext would come a massive federalneducation program, with grants fromn”the National Institute of Marriage tonfavored intellectuals and activists. RosalynnnCarter would ask us to “Just SaynNo” to illicit liaisons, and the IRSnwould use them as an excuse to restrictnfinancial privacy, since cash could benused to fund adultery without leaving anpaper trail.nWould any of us think that familynvalues could be protected, let alonenenhanced, by such a system? Yet manynAmericans support fighting drugs innthis manner, with exactly the samensuccess that a federal marital crusadenwould have. Or rather, with even lessnsuccess, since the war on drugs alsonreaps a harvest of violent crime that anwar on adultery would not.nWith drugs, people tend to fall intonfour categories: 1) those who wouldnnot use drugs even if they were free asnwell as legal; 2) those who mightnexperiment in some limited way, butnwould never become addicts; 3) thosenwho can become abusers, but can alsonbe helped to abstain by moral andneducational counseling; and 4) “natural”naddicts.nCategories one and two are notnsocietal problems. Category threenshould be the target of our anti-drugnefforts, and medical and moral healing.nCategory four probably cannot benhelped by any human means. As thenReagan and Bush administrations havenshown, the government cannot makenthese pathetic individuals abstain. All itncan do is make sure that they visit theirnmisery on the innocent.nIf decriminalizing drugs meantnnothing more than drastically cuttingnstreet crime — and it would — wenshould support it. We cannot preventnaddicts from using drugs, but we cannmake sure that they harm only themselves.nAnd we can free the police tonconcentrate on crimes against innocentnpersons and their property.nAs it is, the innocent are victimizednnot only by drug criminals but by thengovernment. The Reagan and Bushnanti-drug acts attack our liberties byneliminating the remnants of domesticnbank privacy, restricting the honest usenof cash, allowing unreasonable (andnunconstitutional) searches and seizuresnof private property, constructing computerndossiers on every American, andnexpanding the powers and numbers ofnthe IRS.nThe Constitution outlaws excessivenfines. Yet the feds seize cars, cash,nairplanes, and yachts without a trial orneven an indictment, and the victimnmust prove his innocence in an expensivencivil trial. And now the Bushnadministration is pushing a United Nationsndrug treaty that would move usncloser to world government by establishingnan international police forcenand tax agency.nIn 1913, when all now-bannednsubstances were legal, there was non”national drug problem,” but only individualnabuse. Enforcing the moralnlaw against these vices is the job ofnparents and churches, not politicians.nTo put them in charge is to abdicatenour individual responsibilities, to failnabjectiy, and to move closer to authoritarianism.n— Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.nnnA DEFENSE OF DRUG ADdicts^nanother one, in the pages ofnour family magazine? But defendnthem we must; this time from prohibitionistsnwho would carry on the fight innutero. Recent cases in Wyoming andnMichigan have seen pregnant womennbeing brought up on charges of deliveringndrugs and alcohol to a minor — notnthrough the chain-link fence of a citynschool yard, but through the umbilicalncord. Of the thirty-odd cases that havencropped up nationwide, most havenbeen dismissed or seen the chargesndropped, though Jennifer Clarise Johnsonnin Florida was sentenced to 15nyears probation in an action that isnpresently being appealed.nThese cases pose grave problems nonmatter how you look at them. In ancountry in which abortion is still perfectlynlegal, perhaps it is the onlyrecentiynexpressible frustration of somenstate attorneys general that has causednthem to try to protect unborn childrennfrom one kind of abuse when theyncan’t do much about another. Thisndoes give rise to some legal confusion,nhowever, especially in states like Michigan,nwhere a fetus is expressly held notnto be a person. There the prosecutorngot around that difficulty by chargingnKimberiy Hardy with delivering drugsnto her just-born baby (now a person) ansecond or two before the umbilicalncord was clamped.nIn Michigan, as in South Carolinan(where a viable fetus has the rights anborn child does), the state is going afternthe mothers under child abuse andnchild neglect statutes. These new casesnare a direct outcome of the heightenednawareness of child abuse, and of thenPresident’s drug “war.” Is it only myncynicism that makes me wonder atnprosecutors that go after these pregnantn”pushers”? South Carolina hasnmade ten arrests since last August,nwhen the Medical University of SouthnCarolina complained to the attorneyngeneral that they were seeing five or sixnpregnant crack users a week. Surely nondealer can be easier to catch than anpregnant one coming in for a checkup.nOf course these women are bringingnsick babies into the world. And understandably,nthe state perceives it has anninterest, in that it will tax us to foot thenbill for the care of probably many ofnthese babies. But the question is, al-nMAY 1990/7n