"The first law outright prohibiting the use of a specific drug was a San Francisco, California ordinance which banned the smoking of opium in opium dens in 1875." "Cocaine was prohibited in the first part of the 20th century. Newspapers used terms like "Negro Cocaine Fiends" and "Cocainized ******s" to drive up sales, causing a nationwide panic about the rape of white women by black men, high on cocaine. Many police forces changed from a .32 caliber to a .38 caliber pistol because the smaller gun was supposedly unable to kill black men when they were high on cocaine. This was followed by the Harrison Act, which required sellers of opiates and cocaine to get a license (which were usually only distributed to white people). The supporters of the Harrison Act did not support blanket prohibition of the drugs involved 1. This is also true of the later mar1juana Tax Act in 1937. Soon, however, the people who were allowed to issue the licenses did not do so, effectively banning the drugs." The source for the quotes above is http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Prohibition_(drugs) , which goes into a lot more detail complete with citations. Honestly, the best support for the argumant that drug overdises would be virtually nil is the Swiss prescription heroin program in which not a single participant has overdosed in the nearly 15 years the program has been in effect.
Thank you. I would submit that we could come to an agreement if both of us were willing to make certain compromises. The statement I believed was wrong was this one... "The reason the use of these drugs is regulated is because their very nature makes it difficult or even impossible for people to self-regulate usage." This statement is simply false in a number of ways. First of all, use of those drugs was originally prohibited as a result of prejudice, not because of any inherent danger in their use. When Congress was considering whether to prohibit these substances, one of the questions they asked was whether the AMA supported a ban. The response was that the AMA had indeed agreed to a ban when the exact opposite was true. The AMA opposed such a move as there was no clear evidence of any of the claims made by the people interested in prohibition. Second, use of these drugs is prohibited, not regulated. There is no regulation at all to this market as a result of this prohibition. What I want is a system of hardcore regulation so that we can take the criminal enterprises out of the drug trade. Last, you make the claim that it is not possible for people to "self regulate usage" of these drugs when that is clearly not the case for mar1juana and is also not the case for heroin as evidenced in the Swiss prescription heroin program, and is also not the case for millions of people who use cocaine regularly. While it is absolutely true that there is a percentage of people who become addicted, that percentage is nowhere near the majority of users as the data I have seen seems to indicate that somewhere between 8 and 12 percent of heroin and cocaine users become addicted, roughly the same percentage that become alcoholics. I would not tell you that your opinion is wrong, but when you make statements that are clearly contradicted by scientific evidence and available data, "you are wrong" is the proper response. It certainly is possible that a black market will continue, just as one has continued for alcohol. However, looking at alcohol it is apparent that the black market will be very limited in scope, generally limited to people who cannot afford retail prices for these drugs. However, it is not likely that people will grow anything other than mar1juana on their own and if the distribution system we set up were to purchase all of the output of coca and poppy producing countries, it is highly unlikely that farmers in those countries would sell their crops to illegal smugglers for a lower profit (since, as you say, the black market would have to undercut the regulated market). As far as the black market servicing children, if we impose truly draconian sentences for dealing to kids (a year for the first offense, five years for a second, ten years for a third, etc.), we would be able to skew the risk/reward ratio to the point that it simply does not make sense to sell to kids. We have seen this model work with the "We Card" program started in the '90s with alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol availability has been cut by 50% as a result of these programs, clear evidence that we can have an impact in a regulated market. Prohibition has seen half of our young people use drugs before they leave high school in every year since statistics started being kept in the 1970s, despite the massive increases in funding for the drug war. OK, how about "the two most addictive illegal substances there are." I define addiction the same way that addiction researchers do and here is a chart that lays down the criteria along with the measurements for several drugs. Withdrawal: Presence and severity of characteristic withdrawal symptoms. Reinforcement: A measure of the substance's ability, in human and animal tests, to get users to take it again and again, and in preference to other substances. Tolerance: How much of the substance is needed to satisfy increasing cravings for it, and the level of stable need that is eventually reached. Dependence: How difficult it is for the user to quit, the relapse rate, the percentage of people who eventually become dependent, the rating users give their own need for the substance and the degree to which the substance will be used in the face of evidence that it causes harm. Intoxication: Though not usually counted as a measure of addiction in itself, the level of intoxication is associated with addiction and increases the personal and social damage a substance may do.
Editorial: Oh, Mexico (Oh, the Embarrassment) http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/434/ohmexico.shtml David Borden, Executive Director, borden@drcnet.org, 5/5/06 Long-time readers of Drug War Chronicle might remember my December 2002 editorial, "O Canada! (Oh, the Embarrassment!)" The editorial was written at a time when mar1juana decriminalization was a current legislative issue in Canada, and drug war comedians Robert Maginnis (Bush drug policy advisor) and John Walters (the drug czar) were in the Canadian media protesting. "O Canada" is the title of Canada's national anthem. "Oh, the Embarrassment" referred to my feelings as an American over the dire but ridiculous predictions made and threats leveled at Canadians by that dynamic duo. Today I'm embarrassed by the role played by my government in quashing a decriminalization bill in Mexico. The legislation, which had passed Mexico's congress and which President Vicente Fox's spokesperson said he would sign, would have eliminated criminal penalties for low-level drug possession -- sort of, anyway -- though it was also a mixed bag that would have opened up drug enforcement to many more police officers than currently can participate in it. Probably it would have been a net gain for drug reform overall, perhaps a big one. Though Mexican critics of the bill played some role, the heavy-handed influence of the United States was easy to spot. Quotes from San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders typified the reflexive, hysterical reaction from US officialdom: "I'm appalled. I'm in a state of disbelief," he told the Associated Press, "I certainly think we are going to see more drugs available in the United States. We need to register every protest the American government can muster." The US government wants Mexico "to ensure that all persons found in possession of any quantity of illegal drugs be prosecuted or be sent into mandatory drug treatment programs," commanded US Embassy spokeswoman Judith Bryan in a written statement. Media played a role too -- for example, an almost completely one-sided piece by CNN's Anderson Cooper on Wednesday, featuring minutes of raving by fellow CNN'er Lou Dobbs betraying his profound lack of understanding of economics and cross-border drug traffic. Fox caved under the pressure, and the bill is dead, at least for now. I don't think I'm alone in believing the United States does not have the right to tell its fellow nations in the world how to handle drug policy. It's not as if our own policies have succeeded. For example, data released last month by the Office of National Drug Control Policy showed there is as much coca being grown in Colombia, Peru and Bolivia, the major cocaine source countries, now as when the US-directed Plan Colombia/Andean Initiative got underway under President Clinton. Our own criminalization of users has led to terrible inhumanities, such as the dire spread of Hepatitis C and HIV among drug injectors -- a tragedy greatly increased by laws restricting syringe availability and the fear users have that possessing a syringe for longer than it takes to use it will increase their likelihood of arrest. Three years ago, DRCNet hosted "Out from the Shadows: Ending Drug Prohibition in the 21st Century," a Latin American legalization summit convened in Mexico's city of Mérida, in the Yucatan, that brought together numerous leaders and concerned citizens from throughout the hemisphere. Though reason is not wholly absent even north of the US-Mexico border, in Latin America it is plentiful, as a few of the comments made at the conference show: "The only solution is legalization, but it will be a long, hard process... Just taking drugs in itself does not hurt the rights of others, and a democratic, pluralistic state cannot justify this. There is no worse dictatorship than that which seeks to impose its ideas over all others." - Colombian senator and former chief justice of the Colombian Supreme Court Carlos Gaviria Diaz "If we can't even discuss the alternatives, if we can't even admit the drug war is a failure, then we will never solve the problem." - Mexican Congressman Gregorio Urias German of Sinaloa "It is illogical to think we can suppress drug use or drug consumption. It is a big lie," and "the policy of legalization is not a policy of supporting drug use, but a strategy designed to ruin the business of the narcos and the corrupt, and to help the addict." - former Colombian attorney general Gustavo de Greiff Mayor Sanders should listen to de Greiff. Though Sanders and others of his ilk predicted drugs would become more available in the US and kids would cross the border to use them if the bill passed, he need only look to the high schools in his city -- or any US city -- to see how easily available drugs are now, under the current system. If drugs were legal and regulated, instead of prohibited (and therefore out of control), at least we could have age limits and at a minimum keep the drug trade itself off of school grounds. Not that the Mexico bill would achieve that -- mere decriminalization of use and possession cannot end illegal drug dealing unless there is also some legal supply route. But kids in the US can already buy the drugs they want, usually from other kids and with low probability of getting caught; and kids near the border can do so in the US or in Mexico, also with low probability of getting caught. So Sanders' fears are unwarranted -- or rather, they have already long since come true, but for different reasons that he doesn't want to understand. Oh, the embarrassment! I'm sorry, Mexico -- sorry that many of your citizens will have their lives turned upside down when it could have been stopped were it not for our interference. Please, try again, and soon, we need you to help us by pointing the way.
Europe: Germany Plans to Provide Free Heroin to Long-Term Addicts http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/434/germany.shtml The German government announced Tuesday that, given the success of pilot heroin maintenance programs in seven cities, it will expand the program to supply between 1,000 and 1,500 German heroin addicts. That is still a small percentage of the estimated 120,000 current heroin users in the country, but will be roughly twice the number receiving the drug under the pilot programs. Germany began the pilot programs in 2001 in an experiment to see if they could help hard-core addicts get off the drug, reduce their levels of criminality, and reduce overdose deaths and disease. Now, the Germans have decided the experiment was a success. "A heroin therapy is the last hope and provides help for survival for some of those who are addicted," said government commissioner for substance abuse Sabine Baetzing. "It can improve their health and stabilize their social situation," Baetzing told the newspaper Die Welt. Baetzing said the pilot projects had shown that given hard-core addicts heroin at taxpayer expense was a more effective way of getting them off the drug than methadone and that heroin therapy also led to a reduction in criminal acts by participants. Baetzing is a member of the center-left Social Democrats, who are junior partners in a coalition with the conservative Christian Democrats. But she said she thought the government would agree to the plan.
That's on a Federal level. By 1900 46 states had laws in place designed to control or prohibit cocaine.
Well written post. Minor complaints: I said that it would be difficult, if not impossible to self regulate usage. My personal bias shines through here as I know personally several individuals who are just absolutely out of control when it comes to cocaine. It seems like if they were legally able to obtain it, it would be even more out of control, and for more people. For myself, I know that one of the main reasons I probably won't use it ever again, is because I'm moving away from individuals that can get it. If it were widely available legally, I would probably use again. With regards to the black market, I think that an important distinction has to be drawn between prohibition of alcohol and prohibition of these schedule two drugs. Mainly, the people that use each, and their propensities towards black market styled transactions and ability to afford these expensive substances. If you legalized cocaine for example, the black market could simply offer purer cocaine at a lower price. You do make good points though, I just think that the safe course would be to continue current prohibitive policy. As far as draconinan measures, aren't the penalties already pretty draconian for drug dealers? Maybe if you enacted a mandatory death penalty policy for all drug dealers, then I would agree with you. (For the record, I would fully support this. If you wanted to legalize all drugs, provided mandatory death penalty be in place for overusing the substances and illegal selling, I would be 100% in support.) Two most illegal addictive substances, absolutely. That was I suppose the distinction I was trying to make. Right on the mark, love that graphic. Alcohol and tobacco can be just as dangerous.
Yes, you did. However, there is plenty of evidence that most people are able to self-regulate. There are certainly those people who cannot or will not, but those people are able to get those drugs now. More on this in a moment. I would not because I know exactly where that use would lead me. I have been there and there is nothing on Earth that would cause me to go down that road again. This leads me to my point. In a regulated market, we could have computers sift through purchasing histories to identify probable cases of misuse or abuse. Then the next time the person purchases, they can be required to see a medical professional about their heavy usage and presented with treatment options paid for by the taxes on the drugs themselves. I have a personal bias, too, but mine tells me that anyone who is willing can stop using those substances even when they are available. If we devote more money to treatment (as we will be able once we start taxing those substances), we will enjoy even more success getting people off of drugs. Let's deal with this part first. The people that use drugs currently have the propensity for black market transactions, but that is because that is the only way for them to get drugs. If we started with mar1juana, that would change the dynamic closer to what we have today with kids and alcohol and tobacco. They would get it from their older siblings and friends, but would not be introduced to a criminal underground that is more interested in seeing those kids on heroin, cocaine, or meth. And who, exactly, would choose to buy an unlabeled, unregulated product that they could not be sure was pure? In a regulated market, if cocaine were available, I would assume that it would only be pure product, negating one half of your statement. So, market prices could only be undercut by product that has been cut down or product that came in through illegal distribution channels like we have now. We had the same dynamic during alcohol prohibition and it (pardon the pun) dried up after the Volstead Act was repealed. Why would smugglers risk so much trying to illegally import a product that they could make a fine profit on by simply selling directly? The sentences today are pretty stiff, but nowhere near as stiff as I would like in a regulated market where we are only sending people to jail for selling to kids. I would not go so far as a mandatory death penalty, but would support something like a year in jail (no time off, you serve the whole year) for a first offense, ten years for a second, and life for a third. We educate people as to the penalties when they go through a licensing system to be able to buy drugs and we make them aware that we have so many extra jail cells (from all the drug war prisoners that would be freed) that if they give or sell to kids, they are going away for a long, LONG time. Yes, they can and that is my point. Two of the most dangerous chemicals in the world are absolutely legal and, with certain restrictions, you can purchase them in any corner store. As far as heroin, cocaine, meth, MDMA, and the like, I would have them sold in a more restrictive environment (special facility at pharmacies that applied for a license to sell), but there is no good reason to prohibit an adult who is educated as to the dangers from using whatever substances they choose. So long as their choices do not impact others (driving while drugged, stealing to support a habit, dealing to kids), they should have the right to pursue happiness in whatever way they see fit.
Hey Andy, What about a more Dutch model - allow some drugs and heavily concentrate on cracking down on the more dangerous ones?
Actually, that is how I would start things off. I would regulate the least dangerous drug (mar1juana) to put an end to the "gateway effect" and would reclassify a number of drugs (MDMA among others) so that their medical efficacy could be studied. I would keep the current apparatus in place for heroin and cocaine so that we can see how much impact the regulation of mar1juana has on usage of other drugs. I would push for other harm reduction measures (needle exchange, education, pill testing at raves, etc.), but this is how I would start the major reforms.
