The law in Oregon says it's a crime to make or sell illegal drugs. The law says that it's a worse crime to make or sell the stuff within 1,000 feet of a school. Even though the state Supreme Court has just reaffirmed that statute, the distinction doesn't make a lot of sense.

On the surface, the law is intended to protect children and teenagers in school from illegal drug activity. But then, why doesn't it do so? Why doesn't it impose enhanced penalties for selling illegal drugs to anyone of school age?

Selling meth or heroin to an addicted mother of young children who lives 1,001 feet from a school property is a crime far worse than making illegal drugs in a basement 999 feet from a school for sale to the users in some metropolis far away. But the law says the opposite.

The Oregon Supreme Court has just upheld the conviction of a drug dealer who had claimed he didn't know he was doing business within 1,000 feet of a school.

Paul De Muniz, the excellent chief justice, wrote in his decision that the law "leaves no doubt that the legislature intended to protect children … regardless of whether the dealers know they are within 1,000 feet of a school."

Of course he's right about the legislature's intent. But he expressed no opinion about the wisdom of the 1,000 feet.

Common sense says that the 1,000 feet from school does not do anything tangible to protect children. Virtually all of them, especially in middle school and up, live more than 1,000 feet from school. And you would think that children are far more vulnerable to dope peddlers when they are away from school than when they are on school grounds or in class.

There must be more effective ways to protect children from illegal drugs than to post this arbitrary distance. When you think about it, selling drugs to children ought to be a capital offense. Drug dealers who do this ought to be shot - with due process, of course - regardless of the distance from school. (hh)