Posted on 09/25/2002 11:22:22 AM PDT by Edward Watson
Should all Drugs be Legalized?
A conservative Mormon’s solution
Edward K. Watson
Ladies and gentlemen, I have news that will shock you – the Drug War is a failure!
Cost of the War on Drugs
The Western world has spent TRILLIONS of dollars fighting drug use over the past century and what do we have to show for it? Millions of addicts, billionaire drug lords, phenomenally wealthy drug cartels and drug dealers, a more than $500 billion global illicit drug industry, corrupt security and judicial officers, millions incarcerated in overcrowded prisons, astronomical drug-related assaults, murders, thefts and prostitution and criminal records for millions who are barred from international travel, voting and decent employment.
The effect of the war on drugs and drug use in the United States alone is shocking. The US will spend nearly $40 billion dollars this year in its War on Drugs. Of this, state and local governments will spend around $20 billion and the federal government will spend around $19 billion. In fact, the most recent four federal budgets alone for the war on drugs amounted to a staggering $73.9 billion! Fully two thirds of the entire federal budget for the war on drugs is allocated to preventing the supply from hitting American streets. More than $2 billion is allocated this year just for drug interdiction. Over a billion dollars will be given to foreign countries to prevent their drugs from reaching America. Nearly $1.9 billion will be given to foreign farmers to plant alternative crops. $1.678 billion will be spent this year to eradicate drug crops.
One and a half million people in the US are going to be arrested this year on drug-related charges, nearly half for cannabis offenses. Over 600,000 are going to be arrested for mere possession of marijuana. A quarter of a million Americans are going to be imprisoned. More than 60% of all inmates in federal prisons and over 25% of all state and local inmates are drug law violators.
19% of all state and 16% of all federal prisoners claim they committed their most recent offence to obtain money for drugs. Just for them, the US will spend nearly $28 billion this year for their corrections, judicial, legal and police costs, based on the inmate cost of $78,154 per year. Of these inmates, over 11,400 murdered their victims.
More than half a million drug overdose visits will be made to hospital emergency rooms around the country costing the health care system over $12 billion every year. Around 16,000 people are going to die from drug overdoses, 90% of which are cocaine and heroin overdose deaths. Over 52,000 are going to die from drug-related deaths.
The total financial cost to Americans of the drug war was already over $400 billion dollars a year in 1993, vastly higher than the $63-80 billion spent by American drug users every year! $110 billion of this is for expenses and lost tax income alone. Based on steady growth rates, the cost of goods stolen by American drug addicts should exceed an unbelievable $250 billion dollars this year, significantly higher than the 1993 loss of $170 billion!
Fighting drug use costs Americans around $82 billion in direct government budgetary expenditures, $250 billion in stolen property, $100 billion in economic productivity and taxation losses, $10 billion in insurance charges and increased premiums and $20 billion in other indirect losses, for a total loss to Americans of $462 billion every year.
A projection of the effects of drug abuse over the next five years is truly horrifying: 20,000-50,000 murdered by addicts in search of drug money; 200,000 drug-related deaths; one million new prisoners; untold millions assaulted and victimized by drug addicts; two and a half million arrested for marijuana possession; 1.3 trillion dollars in stolen property (equivalent to over $4,000 for every American); $336 billion in wasted government funding; nearly 1.85 trillion dollars in total monetary impact.
Enough!
Why are we following a path that is guaranteed to result in more pain and misery? Instead of reducing blatantly failed anti-drug efforts, the US is determined to increase its war on drugs!
Haven’t we learned forcing people to discontinue what they enjoy is a doomed effort? Didn’t we learn from the Prohibition? How many more people need to be imprisoned, how many more need to be victimized or murdered by addicts, how many more dollars need to be spent before we acknowledge we can’t change human nature?
It is time for a radical new approach to drug usage. All drugs should be made legal to those above 19. The government itself should also produce and give drugs for free to registered addicts, who are housed in designated facilities. Truly dangerous drugs should be substituted with safer versions with euphoric properties satisfactory to the addict. Drug use should be decriminalized, all non-violent and non-theft drug-related criminal records should be expunged and all imprisoned non-violent drug addicts should be released.
This solution may shock those who know me – an active conservative Mormon who doesn’t even drink coffee or tea, much less consume alcoholic beverages, cigarettes or drugs. My suggestion is a practical and indeed a moral matter.
If drug use is legalized:
• The total number of people incarcerated is reduced by up to 60%, saving Western governments billions of dollars every year,
• Millions will lose their criminal records – can now travel internationally, vote and get decent jobs,
• No more backlogs at the courts,
• Minorities, specifically, African-Americans and Hispanics, whose incarceration rates for drug law violations are much higher than whites, receive greater empowerment.
If the government produces and gives the drugs for free to addicts in designated facilities:
• The drug cartels and drug dealers go out of business,
• No more corrupted (by drugs and drug money) police and judges,
• No more drug-addicted prostitutes – streets are nicer,
• No more drug dealers on streets – streets are safer,
• No more thefts, assaults and murders by drug addicts for money to buy drugs – society is much safer and nicer,
• Tailored dosages for specific addicts - drastic reduction in drug overdose emergencies and fatalities – reduction in health care costs – 16,000 lives saved every year,
• Significant reduction in HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, tuberculosis and STD infections – reduction in health care costs – 36,000 lives saved every year,
• Addicts have a place to stay and sleep - considerable reduction in homelessness and its associated crimes,
• Treatment programs available to aid addicts in quitting the habit.
Answering objections
1. Legalization and free distribution would increase drug use.
Not according to studies where drug legalization has occurred. Definitely not in the mid and long term - reductions are foreseen due to the inculcation that addiction is a dead end for addicts and there are better things in life than being hooked on drugs. For this end, awareness of what addiction does should be taught to the youth.
If it is true drug use will increase if drugs are legalized, who exactly is going to pick up the habit? Me? Not a chance. If I don’t take ‘legal’ drugs like beer, coffee or tea, what makes one think I’ll pick up newly-legalized heroin? Would my mother start taking cocaine if it’s legal? Of course not. So who exactly are these new addicts and why should we exchange all the benefits of legalization to prevent them from picking up the habit?
The government-operated drug facilities should provide the free drugs in doses specifically tailored to the addict’s physiology to prevent overdosing. It should also give the addict free food, basic necessities and a place to sleep and stay while under the influence of the drugs. This is to prevent him from harming himself or others, or commit crimes for food and shelter. Strict laws should be passed that discourage addicts from leaving the facilities while intoxicated. These laws should give harsh punishment to any addict who assaults or victimizes others. If they are going to drink or take drugs, they must do it in a place where they can't harm others during the time they're under. Rehab should also be offered to aid the addicts back into society in a productive way.
2. Who is going to pay for the costs of giving free drugs to addicts?
Funding will be derived from the portions currently allocated in fighting the war on drugs (justice, medical, law enforcement, customs, DEA, prisons, etc.). Thus, if the US government spends around $82 billion annually in the war on drugs and in treating the effects of illicit drugs, the money needed for drug manufacture, distribution and facilities comes from there. In fact, the amount would probably be a mere tenth of what the US is currently spending, leaving the government an extra $74 billion every year that can be allocated for other programs and departments (e.g. education, health, space).
Funding can also be taken from the welfare checks the addicts are currently receiving, to offset the cost of their housing, food, basic necessities and free drugs, or, their welfare checks can be drastically reduced or even eliminated since they won’t need it to support themselves.
A lot of newly emptied prisons can be converted into treatment facilities for minimal costs. Chemical drug mass production can be done for less than a penny per dose. It won't be necessary to manufacture every form of drug the addicts use - it will be possible to wean them from one drug to another having identical pleasure influences but that are much safer. Thus, probably no more than a dozen different kinds of drugs need be manufactured.
3. You’re advocating “a drugged-out society is the perfect society”
Not at all. If anything, I'm opposed to all forms of addictive drug consumption which includes coffee, tea, beer and cigarettes.
What I'm advocating is realism. The war on drugs has failed and its only tangible benefit is super wealthy drug lords and drug dealers, who, by the way, don’t pay taxes. Trillions of dollars down the drain, millions imprisoned thousands of corrupted policemen and judges, millions with criminal records. How many drug lords have been brought to justice? A handful. The rest are living like Midas overseas. Why should we continue a failed policy? Can't we spend the billions wasted every year on the war on drugs in opening up space for human development or for better health care, or for feeding the starving in Africa or for giving inexpensive or free college education for our children? The $82 billion the US government spends every year fighting and treating drug abuse is more than enough in giving over three million Americans a free college education! In less than a decade, the US can have an additional three million scientists or doctors! Let's get our priorities straight. Where is the logic in having some drugs legal and some illegal in a free society? When was the last time marijuana-impaired drivers killed more than alcohol-impaired drivers?
I can’t be accused of being a drug user or a closet addict. I believe all consumption of addictive and harmful drugs is immoral. This includes coffee, tea, beer, wine, liquors, as well as marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, etc., etc. We are defiling God’s temple when we consume things that are detrimental to our health (1 Cor 3:16-17). However, I realize I must not impose my religious beliefs upon society as a whole and thus allow people to consume what they will as long as they don’t harm others.
Why do some oppose drug legalization when nearly all of them consume ‘legal’ drugs like coffee and tea? Isn’t their opposition then hypocritical? If I, one who doesn’t take anything addictive or harmful, and have no vested interest in legalization, support it, who are they to condemn it?
4. Why not free beer?
The difference between booze and drugs is the fact we don’t have a widespread illegal trade in alcoholic beverages that is fueling crime (unlike during the Prohibition).
My primary interest is crime reduction. For this, we must target the source of this crime. Cost reduction to government agencies is only secondary. If the current drug cartels switched to alcoholic beverages, they will have to compete against established producers - odds are they won't be able to compete - hence no need for free booze (sorry guys).
5. You want more people to become addicted!
I'm not advocating people should begin taking drugs. I'm opposed to it. What I am saying is if people want to take it, we shouldn't make the consumption illegal. It's their business if they want to destroy themselves. Our attitude should be: "You want to destroy yourself? Fine, I'm not going to stop you - you're an adult. However know this; you can take the drugs only in designated facilities. They will be given to you for free and in amounts that won't kill you. You will be made aware of how stupid your choice is by viewing videos and time-lapse photographs of people who went down this route and pictures and videos will be taken of you showing your deterioration over time in the hopes you will wake up and discontinue this path. Aid to get you off the stuff will also be provided because there's so much more joy and happiness in life than being hooked on drugs. You can stay here; meals and basic necessities will also be provided. However, if you commit a crime, you will lose these benefits and be placed in jail for twenty years." What exactly is wrong with such a system?
6. What about legal prescription drugs?
There is a difference between misuse of prescription drugs (drugs designed to cure you or help you where misuse could result in death or illness) and drugs designed for recreation (where misuse could result in death or illness).
Are the illegal drug cartels mass producing Cipro or Aspirin? No. The linkage then is inapplicable.
Who are we to tell adults what they can and cannot buy? If an adult wants to buy a pack of cigarettes, can we prohibit him? Why then with cocaine or marijuana?
7. How can you enforce age limit restrictions?
This is overlooking the point. My interest is eliminating overall crime and the influence of the drug cartels. As far as I know, they aren't producing cigarettes or alcohol. Well then, why not? The profits simply aren't there. Kids naturally experiment but the imposition of an age limit before they can try, with education and having the drugs available only in designated areas and only to registered adult addicts, places a barrier to minors. Can a registered addict give his fix to a minor for money? Sure, but he'll risk jail, loss of all his privileges and free drugs, and will still be in need of his fix. After all, each dose is specifically tailored to each addict. Can all minors be prevented? Of course not, but the number of unregistered or minor addicts can be severely curtailed. After all, what are their choices? Get caught smoking dope before 19 - get sent to juvie - same as today. Don't register and take drugs at designated centers - no free drugs, no free food - gotta pay through the nose from a street dealer - go to jail - what's the difference from today? In short, whatever arguments made against my model is already applicable today. On the other hand, arguments from my side show advantages over the status quo. In addition, why must people have permanent criminal records for drug possession while still adolescents or young adults? Should they forever suffer because of their youthful stupidity?
8. It is immoral for the government to give harmful drugs to people.
Which is worse, continuing a war on drugs that has the effect of forcing addicts to victimize innocent civilians to obtain items and money to support their addiction; or just give the drugs for free to those who desperately want it? One has the effect of tens of thousands of assaulted and murdered victims, not to mention hundreds of billions in stolen property, the other has none. How many lives are these opponents of distribution willing to sacrifice to maintain the status quo? Would they persist in opposition if they knew their own son or daughter was going to be the next victim of a desperate addict?
While free drug distribution may be immoral, it is the lesser of two evils.
9. Society will get worse if it gives drugs for free to addicts
This is a terrible objection. Are those who use it so willing to have their wives and children victimized by a drug addict just so he can get some funds to buy his drugs? Are they so willing to have a policeman earning minimal pay, tempted with drug money 20 or 50 or 100 times what he makes in an entire year? Are they so willing to see drug dealers post million dollar bonds and continue what they're doing? Any objector to drug legalization and free distribution will change their tune if they and their loved ones were held hostage by a cleaver-wielding addict desperate to get money for his next fix. A cost of a few dollars is the difference between life and death, or, peace of mind and their loved ones’ anguished mental trauma. What price are they willing to pay to preserve the status quo? Are they willing to sacrifice their lives and their loved ones? Is it worth it? In case they haven't noticed, the bad guys are winning! Drug lords incredibly wealthy, tens of thousands of addicts prostituting themselves for their next fix, millions imprisoned for no other offense than being caught with an addictive pleasure-giving substance that contemporary society judges illegal (they would've been fine if it was something as harmless as cigarettes or whiskey). 250 billion dollars in stolen property. 50,000 drug-related deaths a year, tens of thousands of assault and murder victims every single year. Look at Mexico, a nation riddled with corruption - politicians, judges and policemen not accepting drug money bribes are killed. What a choice they are given by the drug lords: silver or lead. Our futile war on drugs coupled with the insatiable American demand for illegal narcotics is destroying Mexico. Do we have the right to destroy their country? I find this emotional intolerance against drug legalization amusing. If anyone should be against legalization, it should be me! After all, I don't even drink coffee or tea. Why then can't we face the facts and admit the war on drugs in not just wasteful and mistaken; it's counter-productive.
10. Giving free drugs is an economic drain upon society
Actually, it is much cheaper to give addicts free drugs, shelter, food and basic necessities than to arrest, prosecute and imprison them.
ANNUAL COSTS STATUS QUO LEGALIZATION AND FREE DISTRIBUTION
Cost per imprisoned addict 78,154
Free drugs (mass production costs) Incl. 365
Free food Incl. 5,475
Free basic necessities Incl. 1,825
Free lodging Incl. 3,600
Free miscellaneous Incl. 3,650
TOTAL $78,154 $14,915
We can reduce five-fold what we’re currently spending per imprisoned addict. Furthermore, when one considers the medical, economic and human costs of a single addict in our society and the negative impact he causes on others, I suspect we can accommodate at least 10 (and perhaps up to 20) addicts under my model for every single one in today's war on drugs. Just to clarify, most drug addicts already are unemployable and unreliable. They already are a drain upon our society. Legalizing drugs won’t change this fact. Sadly, the reality is about dollars. Right now, addicts suck funds from our society by welfare, hospitalization, legal fees, law enforcement costs, incarceration costs, insurance costs and premiums, bank charges, therapy, and other assorted expenses. My model eliminates or drastically reduces the amount they cost due to hospitalization, legal fees, law enforcement costs, incarceration costs, insurance costs and premiums, bank charges, therapy, and other misc. expenses. The only one that stays the same is welfare and the only increase is cost of drugs, food and shelter.
11. We should be addressing the cause why some feel the need to escape into drugs.
I agree we should be addressing the roots of the problem but people have their free agency. We can't force them not to take drugs. The most we can do it teach, inform, warn, express love and pray and cry for them. In an ideal world, drugs are non-existent. Unfortunately, we are not in an ideal world and people escape into drugs. We should try to help, not criminalize them. After all, why is it some are so vociferous against certain addictive drugs but bristle when their own addiction is criticized? Coffee is legal, cocaine is not. Tobacco is legal, marijuana is not. Whiskey is legal, amphetamines are not. Isn't this a case of, "My addiction is ok but your addiction is not?" What do we call such?
12. Legalization means we’ve surrendered to lawlessness.
The problem with those using this argument is it implies "lawlessness = drug use." Unfortunately for them, this can’t be done because many drugs are legal (i.e. cigarettes, coffee, tea, beer, wine, hard liquor, etc.). Thus "lawfulness = drug use." To be consistent with "lawlessness = drug use," these opponents of legalization must expand the war on drugs to include all recreational drugs. Are they willing to have the government start arresting everyone who drinks coffee, smoke cigarettes or drink beer? Well, why not? After all, "lawlessness = drug use!" I have no problem in strictly following "lawlessness = drug use" since I don't take any addictive and harmful substances of any kind. Sure, let's make all harmful drugs illegal! After all, they're all bad for us. Let's not be hypocritical with allowing some recreational drugs to be legal and others illegal. Let's not follow the path of:
"My addictive and physiologically harmful recreational drugs are legal and should be allowed but your addictive and physiologically harmful recreational drugs are illegal and shouldn't be allowed."
After all, how would one feel if his favorite recreational drug was suddenly made illegal and he could go to jail for drinking it?
13. Why should we care about addicts? They made their bed – they should lay in it!
We should care about the addicts because:
• They are human beings, Children of God, with inherent rights, who have unfortunately made wrong choices and are trapped in the grip of addiction,
• They rob and victimize us for drug money,
• They are a financial drain upon our health care system,
• They are a financial drain upon our legal system,
• They devalue our properties,
• They make our neighborhoods dangerous,
• They endanger our lives and our children’s lives,
• The drugs and drug money corrupt our police and judges,
• Drug money is used to purchase weapons and militias that destabilize our nation and others,
• It is much cheaper to give them drugs, feed and house them than to arrest, prosecute and imprison them. It's not hard to see why we should change our approach to drugs.
14. Giving drugs to addicts means we’re helping them commit suicide.
Isn’t this what stores, restaurants, bars and clubs do every single day when they sell cigarettes or alcoholic beverages?
In reality, giving drugs in specific doses to addicts in designated centers reduces overall drug-related deaths. The 16,000 drug overdose deaths can be eliminated by giving addicts doses specifically tailored to their physiology so that they can enjoy their drug-induced euphoria without going over the line into coma or death. We also save the 36,000 who contract HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, tuberculosis and STDs from drug-related causes (i.e. shared needles, prostitution, unprotected sex) who then die every year.
In short, free drug distribution has the possibility of saving over 50,000 Americans every year.
15. I object to having my tax money be used to give addicts free drugs.
People making this objection don’t seem to notice they already are paying quite a bit because of the war on drugs.
TOTAL AMOUNT/YEAR (in billions of dollars)
Government budgetary allocations for the war on drugs Federal budget 19
State and local budget 20
TOTAL DIRECT BUDGET 39
corrections, judicial, legal and police costs of the 16% of federal and 19% of state and local inmates who admitted their most recent offense was to obtain money for drugs ½ of 28
Medical costs for those having drug-related infections of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, tuberculosis and STDs 15
500,000 drug overdose hospital ER visits 12
Additional prisons to house new drug inmates 1
Total US Government Budgetary Expenditures 82
($295/American)
Stolen property for the acquisition of drug money 250
Increase in insurance and bank premiums and charges 10
Economic productivity and taxation losses 100
Other losses 20
Total Economic Impact to Americans per year 462 ($1,662/American)
In addition, this does not include the non-monetary damages of drug abuse such as the 10,000 people who will be murdered by addicts while trying to obtain drug money, the 50,000 American lives that are going to be extinguished from drug-related causes, the 16,000 Americans who will die from drug overdoses, the hundreds of thousands who are going to be assaulted by drug addicts in search of money for their next high, the trauma, fear and valuation losses caused by drug abuse.
If drugs are legalized and all addicts are given free drugs and living necessities in designated facilities, the total cost won’t exceed $15 billion/year or $54/American.
Which is better, giving $54 a year or losing $1,662 a year under the status quo? Even then, the $54 doesn’t necessarily need to come from income or sales taxes – it can be taken from import duty fees.
Conclusion
We Mormons believe in the supremacy of free agency despite government prohibition of all harmful and addictive substances would make our principle of drug-free living easier to live. All must have genuine freedom to choose their own paths and not be coerced by others or the government in matters that don’t harm the populace at large. We implore all to respect their bodies which are temples of God by abandoning the consumption of every addictive and harmful drug, both those currently legal (coffee, tea, cigarettes, and alcoholic beverages) and those currently illegal (marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc.). Having some drugs illegal but tolerating others warps this principle of fairness and equality to all.
The bottom line is drug legalization and government distribution will drastically reduce crime, save tens of thousands of lives and save untold billions of government funds every year. Only a fraction of the savings is needed to pay for the creation and distribution of the drugs. The rest can be used to increase funding to health care or education.
After all, which is worse, a war on drugs that can’t ever be won and only results in enriching drug dealers, corrupting the police and judges, hundreds of thousands of deaths, criminalizes millions, trillions in stolen property and astronomically high crime rates; or, decriminalizing drugs and give them for free to addicts in conjunction with treatment programs?
Which is a better society? It is time for a change. We can’t afford to continue the path we’re on. Too many lives are going to be wasted, too much money is going to be flushed down a drain, too many inherent human rights are being trampled upon, too much government dominion and abuse is being done upon Americans.
Sincerely,
Edward Watson
ewatson@shaw.ca
Its not a good idea, or accurate, to lump all those who oppose the WOD together. People have different reasons for opposing it.
Well, you've vouched for yourself and your mother.
I guess you must be too young to be concerned for your children.
Your attitude will change when you grow up.
The government (i.e., taxpayers) would have no choice but to ante up the free dope because legalization would create far more addicts than exists today.
If you think taxpayer-free needle and condom programs were it, think again. You ain't seen nothing yet in a liberdopian society.
And why in Amsterdamn, where drugs are basically legal, do they have a lower usage rate than the US?
Exactly! It really ticks me off that these two proposals get linked together so often. I guess it just goes to show you that even some libertarians (and most conservatives) don't have the stomach to TRULY allow people to genuinely suffer the consequences of their own actions. We have really become a society addicted to the "safety net" It's pathetic!
If push comes to shove, I'd have no qualms protecting my children from Edward's.
However, in civilized societies, we establish governments to (among other things) "assure domestic tranquility" through the passage and enforcement of laws. Unfortunately, you and Edward seem intent on discarding this mutually beneficial means of protecting our children, so as a parent, I'd be left to resorting to my own capable resources.
Granted, Edward's hypothetical children have nothing to fear from me so long as they would be well behaved. But there are others who would be less judicious in their approach, with the end result being a dangerous environment of anarchic inconsistancy. That is another excellent reason for having government establish a common set of laws that all are expected to observe.
Well said. My Nomination for Qoute of the Day.
Which has nothing to do with the WOD or it's legal justifications.
However, in civilized societies, we establish governments to (among other things) "assure domestic tranquility" through the passage and enforcement of laws. Unfortunately, you and Edward seem intent on discarding this mutually beneficial means of protecting our children, so as a parent, I'd be left to resorting to my own capable resources.
You already are left to resorting to your own resources, which, again, has nothing to do with the WOD or it's legal justifications.
Granted, Edward's hypothetical children have nothing to fear from me so long as they would be well behaved.
Which is exactly how things are now.
But there are others who would be less judicious in their approach, with the end result being a dangerous environment of anarchic inconsistancy.
Those 'others' are already out there now.
That is another excellent reason for having government establish a common set of laws that all are expected to observe.
Which has nothing to do with the WOD.
Comparing watching TV or reading a book to the hazards of peer pressure and addiction to dibilitating drugs and narcotics?
You seem to lack a sense of priority.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.