The Case for Legalisation

Magazine article

By: Anonymous

Date: July 26, 2001

Source: "The Case for Legalisation." The Economist Newspaper, Ltd. (July 26, 2001).

About the Author: The Economist is a London-based, international news weekly in print since 1843. Articles most frequently appear in The Economist without author bylines. The magazine claims to be "writ[ten]by many hands but it speaks with a collective voice." The editorial staff asserts that author anonymity focuses the reader on the content of an article, not its writer.

INTRODUCTION

There have been arguments in support of, and against, the legalization of street drugs since the days of the alleged opium dens—and probably long before that. Perhaps the controversy began when the first person developed an addiction that interfered with daily functioning, and it had an impact on local society. In general, drug legislation and interdiction laws have been at least as concerned with the prevention of drug trafficking and importation, and all of the criminal behavior associated therewith as they have been with the public health and the negative societal impacts of drug abuse and addiction.

The American war on drugs technically dates back to 1875, when opium use was outlawed in northern California. Initially, it was intended as a means of shutting down local opium dens; the legislation was quickly broadened to include laws restricting opium from being smoked, and sharply curtailing (smoking opium) importation, and trafficking, particularly by persons of Chinese ethnicity or descent. This represents a very early instance of racial disparity in the policing of dangerous street drugs.

The Harrison Act, passed in 1914, was written in such as way as to afford legislative control over the manufacture, sales, importation, distribution, and taxation of cocaine and opium, and products made from them, but did not intend to prohibit their use. The same can basically be said for the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act. In effect, both of these laws intended to provide a framework for the licensure of professionals who were to be permitted to distribute or manufacture those drugs. The Harrison Act contained a clause in which it specifically provided for the medical use of cocaine and opium.

The central ethical issue involved in the legislation of drug manufacture and distribution has always been one of personal privacy: is it acceptable for a country founded on a democratic premise to legislate what can and cannot be ingested by its private citizens? If so, where is the line drawn? Why is it acceptable for people to be able to easily purchase and use tobacco products, for which there is a vast body of research data indicating potential for lethality, but not to do the same for cannabis sativa products? A similar parallel can be drawn for alcohol consumption and the use of cocaine (or other illegal drugs of similar genre).

There is much scholarly, research, and public data suggesting that the costs associated with drug use in America are enormous. The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) estimates that roughly fourteen million United States citizens frequently use illegal drugs, and this is believed to have remained fairly stable for a decade or so. The NODCP estimates that nearly twenty billion dollars are spent annually in America to fight the war on drugs. In addi-tion, drugs cost the country countless billions more each year in arrests, incarceration, litigation, loss of life, crimes associated in some way with drug use or drug-seeking behaviors, time spent in recovery and rehabilitation programs, time lost from work, decreased work productivity, and the like.

PRIMARY SOURCE

[Text Not Available]

[Text Not Available]

SIGNIFICANCE

Although fourteen or fifteen million people in the United States use illegal drugs (which includes the use of legal drugs for non-medical purposes and legal drugs that are obtained via illegal means) fairly regularly, a very small percentage of them are actually addicted, or are suffering the effects thereof. For those individuals, the needs for treatment are both urgent and lasting, as addiction treatment is ineffective without long-term follow-up and the inclusion of a variety of social support systems (treatment resources, health care coverage, education, job training, childcare, safe housing, and so forth). For those with addiction issues, interaction with the law enforcement system is common, as is poverty, lack of health care resources, adequate housing, and unemployment or underemployment. For those living in impoverished or inner city areas (or both), crime and drugs are often the only ways for poorly educated youth to make a reasonable living. For many, there is far more appeal in the money and elevated lifestyle sometimes associated with the drug trade than there is in the abject poverty and despair of life in housing projects.

The modern war on drugs got its start in the 1970s, under then-President Richard Nixon. It gained momentum with former President Ronald Reagan's creation of the Office of National Drug Control Policy as well as with then First Lady Nancy Reagan's Just Say No (to drugs) campaign.

Legislators (and others) argue against drug legalization, stating that it will cause an enormous upsurge in drug use, and ensuing addiction, among the general population. There are concerns for the deleterious health effects of drugs as a result of long-term or improper usage. Proponents of legalization argue that while use may peak briefly, it will level off rapidly, and the costs associated with public regulation will be far less than those associated with fighting the war on drugs. They also assert that some legal drugs have exceedingly harmful potential effects—as has been robustly documented in the case of alcohol and tobacco use. Those who argue that more crimes will be committed as a result of drug use are countered by those who assert that enormous amounts will be saved by the sharp decline in drug-related arrests, prosecutions, and incarcerations, if drugs are no longer illegal.

If the impact of educational programs on the overall number of smokers in America is an indication of the most effective approach to limiting initial and long-term exposure to potentially lethal substances, then it strongly suggests that the best route to preventing substance abuse in general is by effective, thoughtful, targeted, and well-placed educational efforts.

There is little objective evidence to suggest that the war on drugs is being won in America—indeed, the explosion in incarceration and criminal recidivism over the past several decades indicates just the opposite. In fact, the costs to the American economy and population are staggering; this suggests that there might be benefit in considering alternative means to the same end: decreasing the importation, manufacture, distribution, and use of potentially harmful (whether legal or illegal) drugs by the American population. By considering sweeping legalization and decriminalization of drugs for personal use, substance abuse treatment could be made readily available, needle exchange programs could be implemented on a large-scale, and manufacture could be made to adhere to governmentally-regulated health and safety standards. Prison and jail populations would decrease exponentially, and potentially productive citizens could be returned to the workforce. The incentives to work in illegal drug trade would be all but absent, and the cost of drugs would likely drop considerably with free trade and open market competition. The American population would have ready access to drugs for which there are considerable therapeutic benefits under certain medical circumstances. Substance abuse and dependence would shift from being a legal justice and law enforcement issue to a physical and behavioral health concern. It would appear that there is much to be gained by ending the war on drugs and considering a new, and potentially more effective, paradigm.

FURTHER RESOURCES

Books

Moffitt, Arnol, John Malouf, and Craig Thompson. Drug Precipice: Illicit Drugs, Organised Crime, Fallacies of Legalisation, Worsening Problems, Solutions. Sydney, New South Wales: University of New South Wales Press, 1998.

Szasz, Thomas. Our Right to Drugs: The Case for a Free Market. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1992.

Web sites

Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. "End the War (Anthony Lewis, New York Times, November 3, 1995)." 〈http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/debate/mcn/mcn3.htm〉 (accessed March 28, 2006).

Kids Against Drugs—Campaign for Drug-Free Families. "Home Page and Statement of Purpose." 〈http://www.kidsagainstdrugs.com/〉 (accessed March 28, 2006).

Justice Policy Institute. "New national report shows that drug-free zone laws fail to protect youth from drug sales, worsen racial disparity in prisons: Growing movement to change ineffective laws finds support among lawmakers and law enforcement officials." 〈http://www.justicepolicy.org/article.php?id=571〉 (accessed March 28, 2006).

Drug War Chronicle. "Raising awareness of the consequences of drug prohibition." 〈http://stopthedrugwar.org/index.shtml〉 (accessed March 28, 2006).

Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. "The Consumers Union Report—Licit and Illicit Drugs." 〈http://www.druglibrary.org/SCHAFFER/library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm〉 (accessed March 28, 2006).