DOES CRIMINALIZATION OF DRUGS HURT SOCIETY MORE THAN THE DRUGS?

Recently I moderated a debate to a sellout audience at Allen Theater,
euphemistically called: "Heads vs. Feds." During that debate, Steve
Hager, editor of "High Times" maintained marijuana was a very good
thing that should be encouraged by government. Bob Stutman, on the
other hand, a former DEA leader, maintained marijuana was not a good
thing and should be criminalized.

As a good moderator should, I disagreed with both debaters. In my
mind, Mr. Stutman was much closer than Mr. Hager in describing the net
impact of marijuana on individuals. On the other hand, Mr. Stutman
only discussed the harm that marijuana does. He did not discuss the
harm that laws against marijuana cause.

Indeed, at one point, he recounted the tragic tale of a DEA agent
killed in the line of duty by a mafia-affiliated drug pusher. He then
used this story as an illustration of the harm that drugs do. This was
a mischaracterization. Drugs did not cause the death of this agent.
Laws against drugs caused his death. Government agents are not usually
killed enforcing alcohol or tobacco regulations.

So, to my mind, in assessing whether we should decriminalize drugs,
the question is whether the cost of drugs being criminal harms society
more than the drugs themselves. In my judgment it does.

Let's look at some of the harm caused by the criminalization of drugs.
A brief but incomplete catalogue includes the death of law enforcement
officers, gang turf wars over drug territories, drug pushers trying to
hook teenagers with "free samples" to ensure a continuing clientele,
overcrowded prisons populated substantially with drug dealers and
users, insufficient prison space for long-term sentences for violent
offenders and a substantial increase in crime by users who have to
turn to prostitution, robbery, and even murder to obtain money to
afford drugs because of the inflated prices charged by criminals.

I believe these costs are worse than the cost of drugs being legal. So
what's my solution?

I would create a chain of government-owned stores that sold marijuana,
heroin, and cocaine. They would sell them at cost, making them
substantially more affordable to the average citizen. Thus, the need
for anti-social criminal behavior to obtain drugs would be
substantially improved.

I would require an information booklet be given to each prospective
drug customer, detailing the potential harm of the drug he/she wishes
to buy. The booklets would contain information about smoking marijuana
as opposed to ingesting in other forms. They would also convey such
information as marijuana's ability to affect depth perception, thereby
rendering driving dangerous. The purchaser would only be permitted to
purchase his drug of choice if he passed an exam on the subject.

Under my plan, drug dealing outside of government stores would still
be criminal, but I am confident the numbers would be so significantly
reduced as to become easily manageable. Because government selling at
cost would so severely undercut the criminals trying to make a big
profit, few if any would find it worth the risk to remain in the business.

Would there be more or fewer drug users under my scheme? I don't know.
Undoubtedly, some people who would not experiment with drugs while
they are illegal might experiment by purchasing them legally from a
government store. I would, however, have the government negatively
advertise drugs (as it does now with cigarettes), so hopefully the
numbers wouldn't rise too greatly.

On the other side, drug dealers would no longer have an incentive to
try to hook young children on drugs. Consequently, fewer of them are
likely to get started. Furthermore, already hooked adults might go to
the government and try to gradually reduce their dependance, which of
course the government could help them do.

So, there might be slightly more or slightly fewer drug users overall.
There would, however, be a huge savings, financial and otherwise, in
enforcing the criminal law. Is it risk-free? No. Is it worth trying?
Absolutely.