Violent crime is so widespread in America's cities that the sound of gunfire is an hourly occurrence in hundreds of neighborhoods.[1] For the past five years, teenage use of drugs has increased -- especially the use of marijuana[2]. Criminal gangs enrich themselves selling drugs and enlist young members by offering brotherhood and identity in a world of isolation. Parents are in anguish and some march in the streets against the threat to their children of drugs, gangs, and guns. Simultaneously, state legislatures hear the parents and wrestle with the use of marijuana to treat those struggling with the nausea of cancer chemotherapy or the wasting of AIDS. Congress regularly holds angry hearings about drug issues. To the observer in Washington, it feels as though a swirling thundercloud of new programs and political charges crashes over the political landscape with the crack of lightning, thunder, high winds and torrential rains. In 1996, for example, the President was repeatedly attacked by his Republican opponents for being AWOL in the "war on drugs." Yet the voters in two states, despite warnings from the nation's "drug czar" that these initiatives would lead to the "legalization" of drugs, passed initiatives supporting the medical use of marijuana. At the end of 1996 and at the beginning of the new term, the highest profile issue before the nation's drug czar was his counterattack against those successful efforts at the ballot box.

This Article weaves through the disparate issues surrounding kids, guns, gangs, and drugs. The principal thread is that rhetorical concern for children has overthrown the analysis of drug policy issues in a variety of contexts. The rhetorical concern is not directly related to the well-being of children, but to political positioning. First, this paper, in commenting upon the proposals of Professors Polsby and Kleiman in this symposium looks at issues surrounding "price" versus "availability" of drugs, the assertion of "zero-tolerance" of drug-use by children, the assertion of a "right" to use drugs, the violence of the crack markets, the broad social issues that need to be addressed for changing drug-using or drug-selling behavior, and the triumph of punishment over persuasion. In a second subdivision, this Article questions the effectiveness of the myriad of strategies to address urban violence as long as they are constrained by the conventional wisdom regarding drugs. The final subdivision of the paper is an overview of the current status of the conflict over medical marijuana. It analyzes the text of the California and Arizona propositions, the political and regulatory attack lodged against them, and describes the litigation that has been filed in support of the propositions. A cornerstone of federal opposition to medical marijuana (and even the 1984 proposal to allow heroin to be dispensed to terminal cancer patients) has been that changing the law would send the wrong message to children.

On to Part II

Go to Section III
Go to Section IV
Go to Conclusion