Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.individualism,sci.econ,talk.politics.drugs From: [doctor 1] at [pofbbs.chi.il.us] (Patrick B. Hailey) Subject: Re: Health, Wealth and Govt Programs... Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 05:32:18 GMT [ added talk.politics.drugs to the Newsgroups line ] In article <[CEnvL 1 2 J 8] at [world.std.com]> [p--l--n] at [world.std.com] (Peter Nelson) writes: >> This is why "vice taxes" on things like cigarettes, tobacco, and (if the >> government ever smartens up & realizes that legalization is the only way to >> effectively curb drug-related violence) > > I see. So you should have no trouble demonstrating that in general, > those countries with the lowest rates of drug-related violence also > have the most liberal laws on drug use. >---peter Easy. For starters, the U.S. prior to 1914. Before then, there were no drug prohibitions, at least at the federal level. Thomas Edison and his friends were free to drink their coca tea, and we all know what a useless life that cocaine freak led. And Thomas Jefferson was able to toke his life away to his heart's content. Between the drugs and the rampant street violence, it's a wonder he found time to overthrow his government. Of course, he probably did that because of his drug use. Terrible thing, what drugs will do to people. Most folks desperately need to get some sense of history. I highly recommend a book by Richard Lawrence Miller called "The Case for Legalizing Drugs". The title, I think, is unfortunate, because it will put off so many people. But it is an amazing book. It is one of the most thoroughly documented books I've ever seen. It takes over a hundred pages just to list his sources. But then, he is a historian, who turned his attention to drug policy because he's a concerned citizen. What I found most fascinating was the history of drug prohibition. Political power, social stature, a genuine desire to harm the general public or destroy the freedom people enjoyed in this country, all these things and more were the real motivations behind the people who started the drug war. The public good was NOT on the agenda. Just like today. Since alcohol is the second most deadly drug known to man, it is useful to look at alcohol prohibition as a study in drug prohibition. The murder rate reached record levels during alcohol prohibition. Organized crime was largely unknown before the prohibitionists had their way. Prohibition fostered great disrespect for the law, law enforcement officers, and government in general. After prohibition ended, the murder rate dropped for 12 straight years. On average, the murder rate continued to drop EVERY decade from 1930 until 1980. The 30s were more peaceful than the 20s, the 40s were more peaceful than the 30s, the 50s were more peaceful than the 40s, the 60s more peaceful than the 50s, and the 70s more peaceful than the 60s. However, the U.S. was NEVER as peaceful as she was before the prohibitionists had their way. Decriminalization of other drugs took hold in the sixties and continued throughout the seventies. The result was that drug use began to drop off in the seventies in a big way. The rate of decline slowed dramatically in the early eighties, as the murder rate quickly soared WELL past the shocking rates seen in the 1920s. So what happened in the early 80s? The new, more violent, more ruthless War On (Some) Drugs. When will we learn that peace and tolerance works best? Again, I highly recommend that no matter where you stand on the issues, you find and read, for starters, "The Case For Legalizing Drugs". In the meantime, consider Holland. While the marijuana laws are still on the books, they have effectively decriminalized marijuana. It is sold freely in shops and youth centers. The stated purpose of this policy is, more or less: "marijuana is harmless. Why insist that our citizens become involved with criminals, who often sell dangerous drugs, just to get marijuana? We DON'T want to push normal citizens engaging in normal activities under ground". Commonly, marijuana in the Netherlands is sold in "coffee shops". The police do, occasionally, use the marijuana laws to shut down these shops. If they are perceived to be creating a market where none previously existed, the local cops will use their discretionary powers and shut them down. More commonly, they will be shut down if they cater to and allow patrons who use more dangerous drugs, such as ALCOHOL. In the absence of other drugs or roudiness or what-have-you, these cafes are left alone, because they are seen as doing a *public service*. The result has been a spectacular drop in ALL drug use. The younger population, in particular, seems to find drugs quite boring. They rebel by wearing funny hair and listening to strange music, but when you can buy pot in the same place you go roller skating, drug use is no longer a very attractive way to challenge parental authority or to establish your own identity. The Netherlands has also decriminalized ALL personal drug use. Junkies can't be busted for carrying around one or two doses of heroine, for example. If they are ripped off, they are not afraid to call a cop. In fact, it is the police stations where they go to exchange their used needles for clean ones. "We are not interested in declaring war on our own citizens" is how the Netherland's equivalent of our "drug czar" put it. Furthermore, he rejects the title of "drug czar": according to him, there is no place for a czar in a democracy. Silly, I know, but there it is. Furthermore, the point of treatment in the Netherlands is to keep people healthy. Period. An accepted treatment goal is to find and help drug users, even if they ARE NOT interested in detoxifying. The name of this crazy and obviously immoral philosophy? "Harm reduction". Morally bankrupt in comparison to the U.S.'s policy of "harm maximization", I know, but again, there is is. The idea is this: The drug problem is just a problem. It is not something special, to be put on a pedestal for people to dance around it in awe, proclaiming: "There is the drug problem! Look at it! There it is!" It is just a problem, like crime, speeding, poor eating habits, alcoholism, or any number of other problems. The harm it causes can be minimized, but cannot be eliminated. Would you want to live in a country that is hell-bent to completely eliminate the problems caused by poor eating habits? Drug education in the Netherlands consists of telling kids about drugs. Not scare tactics, content-free multi-million dollar advertising campaigns, or rookie cops going into schools encouraging kids to turn in their parents. In fact, it is the LAW in the Netherlands that drug education CANNOT be a separate topic: Drugs CANNOT be talked about unless they are part of a general health class. Life has risks, risks that must be managed in order to have a nice life. Drugs is just one of those risks. Nothing less, and most *certainly* nothing more. When the "crack epidemic" was making its second or third devastating wave around the world, the Netherlands looked at the problem, trying to decide if they should do anything special. The inquiry went something like this: "Let me get this straight. The cocaine user can drink this tea and get a nice buzz for an hour or three. Or, he can snort it and get an intense high for about half an hour. Or, he can smoke this "crack" stuff and get shot through the roof, only to be dropped into the basement almost immediately. Jeez, with plenty of the other stuff available, NO ONE would behave like that!" They decided to do nothing special in response to the "crack epidemic. Guess what? With plenty of the other stuff available, almost no one in the Netherlands behaves like that! The result? Well, because of its location, the Netherlands is a popular route for bringing crack to other parts of europe. It's worth a fortune going in, and it's worth a fortune going out, but a pound of the stuff won't get you a cup of coffee in Amsterdam: The cocaine users in the Netherlands don't like it. It's too damned *unpleasant*! The results (and this is where I answer your question)? Well, as of two years ago, here's how things look in Amsterdam: Amsterdam has a population of 700,000. That's about the size of Washington DC. Prostitution is legal, and, more or less, so is drug use and marijuana sales. It's population includes about 6,000 addicts. Approximately 1/4 behave criminally. Most of their crimes are non-aggressive. The murder rate in Amsterdam is, get this: between 20 and 25 a year. No doubt there are this many murders in Washington per *hour* during some periods. Holland has a population of about 14.5 million. As of two years ago, they had a total of 1,200 AIDS cases, and exactly 99 of them were drug addicts. The number of drug addicts with AIDS is *decreasing*. The number of drug addicts is *decreasing*. The number of drug users is *decreasing*. Compared to what things were like in pre-1914 U.S., when there was no drug prohibition and drug use was common but drug problems were few, the toll that drugs has taken on the lives of Hollanders is horrible. But compared to the toll that drugs has taken on the ruthlessly prohibitionist U.S., the more tolerant drug policy of Holland is a paradise. One further note: A story told by Arnold Trebach, of the Drug Policy Foundation, in his book "Drug Prohibition and the Conscience of Nations" (Paraphrased by necessity, since I lost the book sometime back): Arnold has visited the Netherlands many times, and in particular, has visited their "junky union": a group dedicated to looking out for the welfare of drug users in the Netherlands. In return, the head of the junky union has visited the U.S. (As an aside: the top guy at the junky union is not a drug addict, but the next two down are. So, they could not come visit the U.S.) On one of his trips, the head of the junky union made friends with drug addict who worked at a treatment center in New York. On a subsequent trip, he asked after his friend. He was informed that this person died of an overdose. He was horrified. It was like telling him that his friend died of starvation. WHAT KIND OF A BARBARIC COUNTRY IS THIS? he wanted to know. Why should *anyone* die of a *drug overdose* for God's sake??!! Thanks awfully, Patrick Hailey [doctor 1] at [pofbbs.chi.il.us]