From: [p--z--r] at [athena.mit.edu] (Boris Pevzner) Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: END THE DRUG WAR--LET'S GO FOR IT! Date: 21 May 1993 07:57:59 GMT By popular demand, I scanned the editorial from this weeks The Economist (The Economist, May 15-21 1993, v. 327, no. 7811, p. 13.) The other two articles will follow (tomorrow, perhaps). All mistakes are courtesy the OCR software. The article is copyrighted by The Economist. Reprinted without permission. Here it goes: ============================================================================= MAY 15TH 1993 (C) 1993 The Economist Newspaper BRING DRUGS WITHIN THE LAW IN 1883, Benjamin Ward Richardson, a distinguished British doctor, denounced the evils of drinking tea. He said it caused an "extremely nervous semi-hysterical condition". In 1936, an article in the American Journal of Nursing claimed that a marijuana taker "will suddenly turn with murderous violence upon whomever is nearest to him". Tea and marijuana have three things in common: they alter the moods of those who take them, they are regarded as tolerably safe, and they are addictive. Attitudes to addiction are complicated and often contradictory. Tea and marijuana are in themselves fairly harmless, yet tea is generally legal and marijuana not. Tobacco and cocaine are harmful but, again, tobacco is almost universally allowed, whereas most readers of The Economist live in countries which may imprison you for possessing cocaine. Throw in the joker of addictions which come not in syringes or cigarettes, but in casinos and computer cartridges, and you have a fine arena for combat between libertarians and puritans. This battle, always lively, has just become hotter. On April 28th Bill Clinton appointed Lee Brown, a former policeman, as America's new "drug tsar", and thus leader of the world's toughest prohibition programme (see page 31). Ten days before, Italians had voted to move in the other direction by scrapping the harshest measures of their drug laws. Such boldness is rare. The attitude of most electorates and governments is to deplore the problems that the illegal drug trade brings, view the whole matter with distaste, and sit on the status quo --- a policy of sweeping prohibition. Yet the problems cannot be ignored. The crime to which some addicts resort to finance their habits, and in which the suppliers of illegal drugs habitually engage, exacts its price in victims' lives, not just money. The illegal trade in drugs supports organised crime the world over. It pulls drug-takers into a world of filthy needles, poisoned doses and pushers bent upon selling them more addictive and dangerous fixes. Yet most people still balk at exploring ways in which a legal regime might undermine such effects. Their refusal owes something to a distaste for addiction in itself. This is an argument shot through with inconsistency. The strongest disapproval often comes from those who scream about liberties if their own particular indulgencies --- for assault rifles, say --- are attacked. Addiction to cigarettes is reckoned to be the chief avoidable cause of death in the world. Alcohol deprives boozers of their livers and their memories, and ends the lives of all too many innocents who get smashed on the roads by the inebriated. Yet here the idea of dissuasion within the law is broadly accepted. A much sounder basis for doubt is the worry that legalisation would increase drug-taking, and that rising consumption and addiction would overwhelm the gains to be had from getting drugs within the law. Yet legalisation should not be taken to mean a lawless free-for-all, with no restraint on the supply or use of drugs. Done properly, it would allow governments to take control of the distribution and quality of these substances away from criminals. Quality control is decisive, because much of the damage done by drugs bought on street corners is caused by adulterated products; in much the same way, carelessly distilled hooch can cause blindness. Supply would be regulated by a system of government licences analogous to those already in force for tobacco and alcohol (and which would serve, among other things, to keep drugs out of the hands of children), backed by strict policing and heavy penalties. The toughness of the regime would rise with the addictiveness of the drug in question --- a light touch for marijuana, an extremely dissuasive one for heroin. Such legalisation would not magically dispense with the need for policemen, but it would make the needed policing more manageable. Particularly in the business of softer drugs, where the taxes can be lower and the restrictions less onerous, and where the first trial steps towards legalisation should take place, it would undermine the "risk premium" that provides drug cartels with their profits. Taxes raised on what is reckoned to be the world's largest untaxed industry would help governments spend money on treatment and education, which would do more good than the billions currently spent on attempting to throttle the criminal supply of drugs of all sorts. The quest for Soma There is another consideration, one for the future. The illegality of drugs, coupled with distaste for pleasurable addiction, is skewing research. Progress is being made by scientists in understanding both what causes the pleasure of drugs and what makes the pleasure so hard to give up (see page 105). Currently such research is obliged to have only one aim --- unhooking existing addicts. It might have another. In many areas of pharmacology, researchers are exploring the idea of "designer drugs", chemicals tailored to fit harmlessly into human biochemistry. Addiction research should be encouraged to do the same: to move beyond devising better therapies for those who wish to kick the drug habit, into the invention of safer, more effective and less habit-forming highs. At the moment it cannot, for a safe drug equals a "substance abuse" equals a crime. The fact remains that any legal regime which lowers the economic incentive for drugs-crime will surely boost drug consumption. The question is by how much. One possible pointer is that, when asked, people say it will not rise a lot. In opinion polls, Americans generally insist that they would not be persuaded by legalisation to try drugs they are not taking now. There is some reason to believe them, despite the first instinct to be skeptical, since they already have access to plenty of mind-bending substances, from alcohol and tobacco to diet pills. Then there is reassurance from experiments. The American states that decriminalised marijuana during the 1970s saw no divergence in the consumption of the drug from that in neighbouring states which continued to prohibit it. Extensive experience with decriminalisation in Holland shows that not only is there no accompanying surge in consumption --- allowing for the inrush of addicts from more restrictive countries --- but related crime falls when drugs are legalised. One further argument is used by defenders of the status quo. They say that, even if the case for exploring legalisation were conceded by governments, public resistance would doom the idea. This is hardly surprising, given the way governments the world over have for decades hammered home the dogma of prohibition. A more rational discussion could do much to change public opinion. Only a few years before alcohol prohibition was repealed in the United States in 1933, public sentiment was similarly dominated by the opinions of the country's prohibitionist leaders. There are signs that public instincts are changing. In recent months a growing number of federal judges and lawyers have voiced their exasperation with America's approach to drugs. Their objections led politicians in Washington to hold a meeting earlier this month to rethink the country's failed drugs policies. Janet Reno, the attorney-general, started the day by describing her doubts about America's current approach. It ended, significantly, with a discussion of the merits of legalisation. Neither Mr Brown nor Ms Reno, and certainly not their boss Mr Clinton, has so far supported legalisation. But they have done what no American administration has dared do in living memory --- set the scene for a proper debate. ============================================================================= -bp