Drug Policy: The Failure of Prohibition and the Prospect of Industry Reclamation

Cocaine. Marijuana. Heroin. For parents of teenage children, chief among many vices that must be kept away from the children. For some with chronic illness, a last salvation to relieve pain and endure life. For the politicians on Capitol Hill, either a matter of medical right or public protection. For many, a demonic evil which latches on, haunts their lives, and doesn’t let go. Between 1979 and 2001, the percentage of Americans who have used drugs skyrocketed from 31.3% to 41.7% (Lloyd, Table 1). Despite the best efforts by society and government, America’s drug craving shows no signs of letting up.

Public opinion and political reaction has been to embark upon an unwavering campaign of abstinence education, user criminalization, and outright prohibition. In the schools, we pound into our students the dire health effects and stress outright, absolute rejection of any use. When our youths inevitably fall into the temptation and its vicious cycle of addiction, whether because of peer pressure, environmental situations, or plain recklessness, our only response is to throw them into prison or a rehabilitation clinic, where the same absolute abstinence education is hammered in and enforced. America’s entire drug policy is rooted into denial; we tell our children never to use them, tell our addicts they can’t use them, threaten our media not to discuss them, and by turning a blind eye tell ourselves that the problem doesn’t exist.

The situation with substance abuse, and society’s denialist stance, has occurred before in the past, with issues such as alcohol prohibition. From 1920 to 1933, all alcoholic consumption was banned. This action, under the idealistic and uncompromising perspective of the era, would supposedly reduce crimes resulting from drunkenness; improve the social and family relationships that alcoholism had destroyed; eliminate the adverse health effects of alcohol consumption; and improve society and government as a whole by removing the burden of caring for those plagued by rampant alcohol abuse—much like our current prohibition of drugs aims to do. However, the prohibitionists of the 20s and of modern times both ignore the all-important existence of allure, both the chemical addictions and the psychological pressures, and overestimate the ability of government and society to control this desire by a simple, take-no-prisoners control of individual lives.

Admittedly, for our pre-drug youth, prohibition policy has done well in educating children about the consequences of drug use. Almost any teenager, whether a user or not, will know that the use of drugs is dangerous and harmful to one’s health. From 1979-2001, contrary to overall trends, drug use among the age 12-17 teenage group dropped from 31.8% to 28.4%, and among young adults aged 18-25, drug use dropped from 69% to 55.6% (Lloyd, Table 1). However, the majority of drug problems stem not from preventing initial drug use, which is fairly hit-and-miss between one-time users and lifelong addicts, but from the recurring cycle of addiction for substance abusers, a growing problem which current prohibition policy does not address.

The Prohibition of the 1920s failed to actually curb alcohol consumption; all it did was drive the industry underground, taking production out of the hands of the corporations and putting it into the hands of organized crime operations—outside the jurisdiction of the government, which couldn’t regulate something it criminalized. The flaw in Prohibitionist theory, both in alcohol and now drug use, was its rational and hostile method of appeal, designed to reason with non-users about the adverse effects of substance abuse, and intimidate users through legal punishment. However, neither method succeeded in attacking the real root of alcoholism and drug use; the heaviest users did not abuse substances out of rational calculation or lack of consequences, but instead were victims of a physical, chemical addiction, a condition not related to rational thought or legal punishment. Substance addiction beckons to the user, and under extraordinary physical pain from withdrawal symptoms, no foreboding health fact nor harsh criminal penalty will deter an addict from seeking relief. Prohibition is woefully oblivious to the physical needs of people and is based unrealistically on the expectation that long-term health rationale and criminal punishment alone will override a chemical addiction (Ostrowski, Would Drug Use Increase?). The solution lies not in outright prohibition, but a blanket legalization of any and all substances, which will then allow pervasive and safe regulation of the industry and progressive government actions to both help rehabilitation and limit drug abuse.

Drugs are inherently dangerous, no doubt about that. In addition to the numerous health risks which naturally accompany drugs, the dubious sources of these substances—a bag of white powder bought on the street may as much be cocaine as it is animal poison or laundry detergent—and the lack of usage precautions—drugs are often consumed using dangerous methods such as snorting and syringe injection—contribute further to the current dangers of drug use. Drugs today may harm not only by their direct effects on the body and the dangerous acts performed by those under a hallucinogenic state, but increasingly by foreign, potentially poisonous contaminants that are mixed in with these drugs, and dangerous usage methods that needlessly further harm to users beyond basic use, ill-effects not intrinsic in drug use but created by the government drug policy that has left production and distribution into the hands of common criminals. This is shown by the rapid increase of deaths stemming from illegal drug use, from less than 1000 deaths in 1979, when drug use was mostly recreational and substances were relatively more mild and ‘pure’, to nearly 5000 deaths in 1998 (CDC, Illegal Drugs), where drugs have now become a veritable industry and users are no longer recreationists, but addicts. Among injection drug users, who commonly reuse and share the needles when taking drugs, the prevalence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is 14%, over 50 times the rate among the general population(Swan; U.S. Census, 1 December 1996). The dealers who sell drugs today have no interest in the health of their customers; their singular desire is to create a profit, and if the law persecutes them the same whether they are ensuring safe use or not, selling legitimate substances or fake ones, the dealers have no incentive to ensure users are taking the drugs safely, and no incentive not to substitute in a toxic (but cheaper) substance such as animal poison for the actual drug. The solution is not to continue banning and persecuting the sellers and consumers, which thus far has had little effect; as long as the addictive effects are present, the consumers will continue buying, and as long as there remains a lucrative demand, dealers will continue to sell and institute whatever cost-cutting measures they can to expand their profits. Only by regulating the illegal drug industry, as the government does with tobacco, alcohol, food, medicines, and any other substances regularly consumed by Americans, can safe standards be applied to the drug market.

At the moment, drug production as an industry much resembles Prohibition-era alcohol: a massive criminal network which runs rampant, independent of any regulation whatsoever. Because drug production is kept hidden and underground, a matter necessitated by the illegal nature of the act, the government has no influence upon or even inspection of the drug producers (Ostrowski, Drugs Made More Dangerous). This is a distinct contrast to such industries as tobacco, alcohol, food, and medicines, where federal safety guidelines, regular inspections, and rigorous trial testing, in addition to the corporate internal interest in maintaining product integrity, help to uphold quality and potency standards, making consumption of those legal products, relative to illegal drugs, a much safer and much less volatile act. By legalizing drug production, the industry would surface from the underground crime organizations, placing it into the hands of the corporate entities, or even government itself, either of which could (and in the interest of profits and public health, would) implement the necessary safety standards. Flagrant abuses of the consumer, such as substance substitution, could readily be limited from the outset. With legalization, and subsequent scientific research and product development, the nature of drugs themselves could also be altered, increasing the delivery effects of oral consumption and smoking, which would discourage users from more dangerous methods such as needle injection and snorting (the inhaling of drugs through the nose, which can cause severe damage to the nasal membranes) (Ostrowski, Drugs Made More Dangerous); or reducing their stimulative levels (although not to a point where street producers with ‘more potent’ drugs could again become viable); or maintaining most of the stimulative effects but eliminating most or all of the debilitating health effects; or determining and eliminating the addictive elements which are the source of problems for most users. Additionally, federal guidelines could mandate that a disposable syringe be included with each drug dosage sold, discouraging the reuse or sharing of needles which often facilitates the spread of diseases such as HIV (Ostrowski, Drugs Made More Dangerous). Engaging in drug use will still be a dangerous activity, no doubt. But as with tobacco and alcohol, government regulation of the products would limit the direct health effects and the dangers of reckless actions in an intoxicated state, to levels deemed acceptable by society, or at the very least, to levels safer than the situation at the present.

The legalization of drugs would also present methods to combat the drug addiction of present users, by making actual drugs (instead of substitutes) available in rehabilitation clinics, decreasing user apprehension of government programs (because of the possibility of incarceration), and encouraging users to become more open about their problems. Addicts in current rehabilitation programs have essentially two choices: completely cease drug consumption altogether (going ‘cold turkey’) or use progressively decreasing amounts of a substitute drug, such as methadone. While those of extremely high tolerance or low addiction may be able to conquer addiction through complete restraint, it may be an impossible task for others already caught in deep addiction. Alternative drugs, while useful in some cases, are not be the solution for all addicts, and often generates further complications—in cases such as methadone, by reducing addiction from the target drug (generally heroin), but simultaneously breeding a new addiction to the substitute drug (methadone). With legalization, gradually lower doses of the actual drug, not a substitute, could be used in the treatment of addicts, which when combined with modified forms that may eliminate the health and delirium effects but retain only the addictive elements, could provide an extremely safe and effective method of drug rehabilitation. Additionally, the free availability of drugs would lessen the exclusitivity of professional rehabilitation programs as the only way to attain addiction help. For many, the application to such a program is a daunting commitment and admittance to having a problem which needs to be fixed, requiring perhaps an overwhelming pledge of time and effort. The availability of consumer-level, self-administered rehabilitation products, such as gradually impotent drugs, would serve much like the over-the-counter nicotine patches available to tobacco addicts—an valuable alternative for users who seek help but are unwilling to pledge a full effort to professional rehabilitation. The legalization of drugs would also help bring light to addiction problems, both to the public community and the users themselves. In the current criminal environment, many users are apprehensive about public admittance of addiction or drug use, and are reluctant to enter rehabilitation programs, for fear of legal criminalization and public scrutiny. The legalization of drug use would eliminate any fears of punishment, and diminish society’s hostile view of drug use to a level akin to alcohol or tobacco consumption: undesirable, but still acceptable.

The legalization of drugs would also improve various socioeconomic conditions not directly attributed to drug use, but affected by it all the same. Outside of the health issues, drugs affect users through addiction, which continues to chemically force addicts to continue consumption, or suffer even worse short-term health effects. Not only does this physically-compulsory usage continue to destroy an addict’s health, but it also opens him up to financial exploitation. Even if a user has consciously decided and committed to quitting drug use, he is compelled to continue taking the drugs or suffer severe withdrawal symptoms. Knowing that these users are forced by their addictions to continue consuming drugs, dealers are able to raise their prices to extortive amounts, which the user, for dire need and lack of alternatives, is forced to pay. Addiction often causes financial ruin, not only for the addict but for his dependents, such as a spouse or children, as everything is sacrificed—the money needed for food, clothes, rent, medicine—simply to pay the costs of satisfying drug addiction (Ostrowski, Economic Impact of Prohibition). Non-financial matters, such as the effect of a continually stoned family member, or a jailed family member, on social relationships within the family, can also be devastating in initiating depression, stress, social breakups, and in the case of the child of an intoxicated parent, an especially traumatic childhood—which may beget further drug use (Boaz, The Failures of Prohibition). The presence of the drug industry has also contributed to significant rises in crime, not only in acts committed by those under the influence of drugs, but in transaction disputes and by the dealers in violence over ‘market territory’—a fight for the power to exclusively sell in a particular area. The legalization of drugs, and subsequent industry shift from criminal organizations to corporations or the government, would solve both of these problems. Selling the product openly and legally in a free-market system would ensure that consumer prices would never reach prohibitively high costs. Not only would anti-collusion laws prevent the kind of price extortion which takes place in the illegal market, but competing drug businesses would necessitate that retailers lower their prices to remain competitive, and that no single vendor would be able to establish a territorial monopoly. Additionally, if drugs were legalized, the government would be able to regulate and set price controls upon commodities, as well as extend financial aid to addicts who are unable to afford drugs. The removal of the criminal producers and establishment of the corporations, who rarely commit gang violence, would also eliminate the conflicts which erupt over territorial control. The elimination of underground street deals, and the legitimacy of a licensed retailer, would also eliminate the many transaction disputes which today are solved simply by violence, because there is no court to turn to (Boaz, The Failures of Prohibition). Outside of eliminating the crime threats to the community, the establishment of corporations would also benefit the criminals themselves, effectively destroying the job opportunities in underground trafficking and forcing dealers, smugglers, and producers to find legitimate, and less dangerous, lines of work, as well as discouraging future generations from entering a once-lucrative industry (Ostrowski, Destruction of Community).

Beyond the benefits to those people and communities at the forefront of drug abuse, is the huge benefit to the federal government, namely in the relief of the drug prevention burden and the economic potential of the drug industry. In 2006, the federal government alone will spend over $12.4 billion combating drug use, more than it will spend on the Departments of Commerce, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Treasury, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Social Security Administration (ONDCP, 1; OMB, Table S-3). In 1998, state governments spent an additional $81.3 billion, a figure which has only increased in recent years (NCASA at Columbia). Neither of these figures include government health care and rehabilitation costs, nor the cost to the law enforcement (police forces in general, who respond to drug cases but are not necessarily specifically tasked to do so), judicial, and prison systems (where over 33.9% of convictions are drug-related, more than any other crime. (Speiss, Felony Convictions in State courts)). The legalization of drugs would eliminate many of the problems associated with it today, and ease government budgets for other, more essential programs, such as health, education, welfare, defense, scientific research, and combating other forms of crime (Ostrowski, Clogged Courts and Prisons). In addition to lessening the financial burdens upon the government, the legalization of drugs as a legitimate industry would create huge economic opportunities. Overnight, an estimated $60 billion illegal market (Zill, Drug User Expenditures) will turn into a legal, highly taxable one, both at the corporate profit and retail sale level, one that should only continue to grow with refined mass production methods, free transportation and sale, reduced retail prices, and gradual societal acceptance. At the labor level, legalization of the industry would generate large employment opportunities in business management, scientific research, industrial manufacture, and retail sales. In scientific research, corporate and public interest would be generated in fields such as biotechnology, providing research capital, and the legalization of drugs would open opportunities in the type of research and testing markets available to scientists. In the medical realm, legalization would permit the use of certain drugs previously banned, enabling the use of such narcotics as marijuana, morphine, and certain cocaine specimens as pain relievers for the terminally ill, whose health condition is secondary to the relief of physical pain, in addition to the use of drugs in experimental treatments. In industrial production, the freedom to explore the possibilities of hemp production (the non-drug form of cannabis, or marijuana) could lead to viable alternatives for fuel, textiles, and paper.

Drug legalization is by no means a surefire proposition, and does present many risks which may actually contribute further to the problems of drug abuse instead of solving them. The legalization of any substance, especially an addictive one with an established user base such as drugs, always carries the risk of reckless abuse, encouraged and intensified use, reluctance to rehabilitate in the face of lessened legal penalties, and extended use by those who would otherwise never even consider the activity. The keys to addressing these concerns hinge upon a rigid government regulation policy and the successful chemical modification of drugs. The legalization of drugs must be treated by government and corporations not as a capitalist consumer product, but as a health product. Though economic potentials exist, the primary goal of a proposed legalization would be to curb drug use and diminish its effects; the marketing of drugs as a consumer product would thus contradict this by promoting and expanding use as a recreational activity. Although users would certainly purchase drugs for recreational use, to market them as such would be irresponsible to public health; consumer drugs can only be promoted as a medical product designed to help addicts cope with pain and addiction, which would, in the perception of the general public (and the minds of potential users), generate an image of drugs as a medical, not recreational, product. With government regulation of marketing, to an extent even greater than that of the restrictions currently placed on tobacco and alcohol advertising, the marketing of drugs as a recreational activity, and thus the worst of consumer growth and exploitation, could be avoided. The second fear of legalization would be an increase in the number of dangerous activities performed by those under the influence. Though drug use would be made legal, the reckless activity performed by those under the influence would still remain illegal. Those who committed criminal acts, or dangerous acts while under the influence, would continue to be prosecuted, much like public drunkenness and intoxicated driving laws are applied today for alcohol users. Criminal acts committed under the influence of drugs will likely never be eliminated, but it is an ongoing issue that is present today, not some new issue that would be introduced by legalization. Another risk of legalization would be the elimination of two of the primary motivations of drug rehabilitation: fear of criminal prosecution and court-ordered rehabilitation. By legalizing drugs, users would have nothing to fear from criminalization, and courts could no longer assign rehabilitation programs for the possession and consumption of drugs. Both of these would likely contribute to significant decreases in rehabilitation program participation. However, the legalization of drugs creates many new incentives to participate in rehabilitation programs, such as more innovative drug therapies, decreased apprehension, and societal recognition of addiction as a problem, would make up for and outweigh the participation losses in punishment-motivated rehabilitation. The last, and possibly greatest fear of drug legalization, would be the extension of use to those who would not even consider drugs in an illegal situation, particularly in the case of children, teenagers, and young adults. However, the greatest problems in drug abuse have been in the repeat users and addicts, and drug use in the young age groups have actually been steadily decreasing, due in large part to educational efforts on the health effects related to drug use. Regardless of the legal status of drugs, there should be no challenge to the educational status quo, which should continue to educate and discourage drug use among younger generations, and marketing regulations would also work to prevent drugs from becoming a mass consumer recreation item, like alcohol or tobacco. While it is entirely possible that overall drug use could increase with free availability, the effects of this would be minimized by the diminished potency and addictiveness relative to today’s substances. Thus, although more people in general may be using or experimenting with drugs, the lack of serious health effects or addictive qualities would mean that its actual threat to most individuals’ lives would be minimal.

A second potential pitfall is the actual feasibility of modifying drugs to suit rehabilitation and general consumption needs. While the benefits of legalization are not completely contingent on the success of drug modification, many of the long-term goals of drug control, such as reducing drug addiction and minimizing potency effects, are largely contingent on the modification of drugs into less potent and less addictive forms. Though, with dedicated research and development budgets, the modifications of drugs could be done through the breeding, genetic splicing, and the manufacture process in theory, the realistic feasibility could not be determined until after legalization and significant research effort had been devoted. However, the feasibility of drug modification is but an enhancement to drug control through legalization, and even without drug modification, legalization can be effective in controlling drugs through many other means.

The issue of drug abuse continues to be a problem which plagues the United States. While educational prevention policies for youths have been effective thus far, the current prohibition policy does nothing for, and in fact hurts those long-time users who have become heavily addicted. Not only does the abuse of drugs have horrible effects for its users, but drug abuse has also directly affected the lives of innocents who are not users themselves, but are related socially or simply geographically to drug abusers. In addition, the criminalization of drug production, sale, and consumption, has created a thriving criminal network in the drug industry, one which spawns crime and costs government—and society—billions of dollars to combat every year. By banning the drug industry, the nation is also limiting a huge economic opportunity for laborers (through employment), businesses (through profits), and government (through taxes), and is limiting promising potential in research avenues such as medicine, crop production, fuel sources, and industrial material. Decades of prohibitionist policy has shown it to be ineffective in stemming the rapid growth of drug use. The introduction of blanket legalization presents numerous benefits and innovative methods to combat drug abuse in society, and at the very least, its implementation into national or global policy deserves to strong consideration and debate.
Bibliography

Boaz, David. Testimony before U.S. House of Representatives. 16 June 1999 < <http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-dbz061699.html>

Dalrymple, Theodore. “Don’t Legalize Drugs.” City Journal Spring 1997. <http://www.city-journal.org/html/7_2_a1.html>

Lloyd, Jennifer. “Drug Use Trends October 2002.” Office of National Drug Control Policy Web Site October 2002. <http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/>

National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (NCASA at Columbia). “Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse on State Budgets.” The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University Website January 2001. <http://www.casacolumbia.org/pdshopprov/shop/item.asp?itemid=26>

Ostrowski, James. “Thinking About Drug Legalization.” Cato Institute Policy Analysis Website 25 May 1989. <http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa121.html>

Spiess, Michelle. “Drug Data Summary March 2003.” Office of National Drug Control Policy Web Site March 2003. <http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/drugdata/index.html>

Swan, Neil. “CDC Report Highlights Link Between Drug Abuse and Spread of HIV.” Nida Notes March/April 1997. <http://www.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol12N2/CDCReports.html>

United States. Census Bureau. “Monthly Estimates of the United States Population.” U.S. Census Bureau Web Site 20 December 2000. <http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/nat-total.txt>

United States. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). “Drug-Induced Deaths CDC (1979-1998).” truth: the Anti-drugwar Website 1998. <http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/death/illegal-other.gif>

United States. U.S. Drug Enforcement Association. “Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization.” Drug Enforcement Administration Website May 2003. <http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/>

United States. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). “Budget of the United States Summary Tables, Fiscal Year 2006.” Office of Management and Budget 7 February 2005. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/tables.html>

United States. Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). “National Drug Control Strategy Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Summary: Executive Summary.” Office of National Drug Control Policy Web Site February 2005. <http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/06budget/exec_summ.pdf>

Zill, Oriana, and Lowell Bergman. “Do the Math: Why the Illegal Drug Business is Thriving.” Frontline 2000. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/special/math.html>