Ultimately the common sense solution to reducing drug usage and the problems associated with abuse is through public education. We’ve successfully reduced tobacco addiction from nearly 60% to less than 30%- without passing any laws which turned addicts into criminals. There are several reasons why any common sense solution to drug problems MUST start with decriminalization of use and full legalization through licensed, regulated, and accountable [via civil suits similar to the ones against tobacco companies] for their costs to society.
1] Do we really want to incarcerate drug users? Or would you rather that we prosecute those who steal or destroy personal property - or physically attack or threaten others physically? If you want both to be jailed, how much are you willing to pay in higher taxes? The reason many people don’t serve anywhere near their complete sentence is not due to lenient judges or lack of “tough”[but not necessarily smart] laws, but lack of jail and prison space. Politicians who are eager to write laws creating new crimes and criminals are far less eager to underwrite the taxes necessary to ensure that adequate jail space is available. If we want the law to get respect from criminally oriented people then we need to spend a lot more on prisons than we presently do - and I personally can’t see an end in sight!
1b] Why do many people commit violent crimes? Over two thirds of crime is drug related. If you subtract users, dealers, and people committing violence under the influence, that leaves over a third of crimes committed by people getting money to pay for addiction. People addicted to alcohol [10+ percent addiction/abuse rate] and tobacco [90 percent addiction/abuse rate] can legally work and can afford addictions - even on low wage earnings. Even if these crimes are replaced by other crimes committed by new users, the crime hit will take a HUGE hit - especially if combined with users and dealers [while some could get arrested for unlicensed sale, the lack of a profit motive would limit number of sellers.
2] Who presently pays for the social costs of drug use? For legal drugs such as tobacco, civil lawsuits brought by governments and individuals are offsetting much of the economic burden that use of their legal drug has caused society in general and taxpayers in particular. The cost of illegal drugs is paid for exclusively by taxpayers, lower level criminals and their families, crime victims and their families, and consumers who offset the cost of theft and accidents due to irresponsible and destructive behavior of drug users. The upper level suppliers make out with huge profit margins and the “problem” of laundering illegal money through legitimate enterprises.
Under a legalized system, suppliers would have to pay licensing fees, taxes on profits, and probably have to set up a sinking fund to take care of future civil suits from government, businesses, and families injured by the abuse of their legally sold product. There would definitely be an incentive to minimize the dangers and alert buyers of the consequences of drug use. One might even have to sign a waiver of liability in order to legally purchase some drugs. Present day suppliers of illegal drugs are too far removed from the point of sale to even be identified by other than fellow criminals and good luck on suing the street vendors who spend most of their profits before arrest.
3] Would use of very dangerous drugs increase with legalization? Anyone who follows the lap dog media - who are very good at repetition of information from “official sources” and bad at finding out really useful information - understands that the “drug of choice” fluctuates widely [or even wildly] between communities and years. The “drug of choice” has more to do with what’s widely available than addiction. Unlike legal products availability has more to do with the risk of getting caught than the risk to user and potential civil liability; can you imagine what the potential liabilities would be for cigarettes if they were recently decriminalized [would anyone be willing to sell them?]. You will get more outlets willing to sell the less dangerous drugs than the more dangerous ones. Who will want to risk the potential civil liability for a product that will have limited demand? There is little reason to assume that legalization would have a different effect on these market forces [black market forces?]. There is every reason to believe that the regulated sale of many of these drugs [especially marijuana] would DISPLACE legal drug sales - which explains why the PDFA is bankrolled by alcohol companies and why the anti drug commercials are not going after the “hard” drugs that presently pose the greatest danger to society; instead drawing bead on “soft” drugs which would reduce their share of the recreational drug market.
4] Is a “zero tolerance” policy a reasonable goal of society with regards to drug use? The first problem with “zero tolerance” is that it is only applied to presently illegal drugs and many legal substances are exempt. I don’t know of anyone with any smidgeon of credibility who would suggest that all presently legal drugs are less dangerous than all illegal drugs - so I won’t bore you with facts. The second problem is that the idea of “instant gratification” is pervasive in our media in general and advertising in particular. Prime time viewing is rife with this basic message: have problem> take drug> problem solved - which is a variant of: have problem> buy product > problem solved. While the use of recreational drugs maynot be society’s best alternative to “problem solving”, education is a far less intrusive, expensive, and ultimately effective solution that guides people into better choices - rather than turning them into criminals. The third - and most compelling - problem with “zero tolerance” is that it is an abysmal failure. The fact that a leading candidate for president acknowledges that the government can’t even keep drugs out of prisons [Gore’s infamous “drug testing prisoners” proposal] should speak volumes about how absurd this policy is! Do we drug test astronauts returning from Mars missions next?
I believe that those who make products accountable should be held accountable for the damage they inherently cause by mere use rather than abuse. I am not proposing any remedies for those who abuse drugs and cause problems - like those who drive under the influence of any drug. Accountability is far easier when the drugs are legal and the distributor has a vested interest in educating users as to the potential hazards of use. It is easier to hold someone accountable when they have a legitimate place of business and legally earned assets. Jail should be a last resort in dealing with problems associated with use of recreational drugs; under the war on drugs it is too often the first or second resort - and since no politician seems willing to ensure adequate funding for prisons, prison seems to have lost its deterrent effect on crime. The most compelling argument for decriminalization accompanied by legalization is that it will reduce crime substantially. I don’t want to spend money on solutions that are proven failures at reduction of crime, violence, and drug abuse - and that’s why I’m sticking with the common sense solution of legalization.