DRUG USERS NEED HEALTH CARE, NOT HANDCUFFS

IMAGINE a world where people addicted to cigarettes, alcohol or even
prescription painkillers were plucked from society and treated as
criminals. Sound like an invasion of privacy, a waste of resources or
simply a bad idea? Current U.S. drug policy, which is mirrored by
many countries throughout the world, dictates that illicit drug
abusers are often treated in this way.

Granted, this analogy -- like any other -- isn't perfect. Different
substances require different policies. Nonetheless, it is high time
that the United States turns a critical eye towards its own
strategies for tackling drug use. While wholesale legalization might
yield the best results, the government doesn't need to necessarily go
that far; simply emphasizing a public health approach over a criminal
justice one could save money and have a positive effect on our
communities.

For a sweeping reform of the current system, extensive legalization
is one option. And this would certainly have enormous positive
outcomes. The United Nations estimated in 2005 that illegal drug
trade is worth about $321 billion annually. For those willing to
accept the risks, this industry is a potential gold mine, lining the
pockets of criminals, terrorists and corrupt public officials.
Regulating this business would not only make it safer but could line
governments' accounts with billions in tax revenue. Countries could
certainly put this money to far better use than these illegitimate
"narco-states" could.

Of course, the problem with outright legalization is that no one can
reliably predict what the results will be. This is especially
dependent on which substances are legalized. If the use of cocaine,
for example, significantly increased, all of the positives mentioned
above could easily be overshadowed by a public health crisis.

The problem with absolute prohibition is, quite simply, that it
doesn't work. While the goal is noble and well-intentioned, a
"drug-free world" simply isn't realistic. Ethan Nadelmann, founder
and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, argued this point
in a Foreign Policy magazine article appearing last year. He pointed
out a telling fact: in 1998, a U.N. General Assembly Special Session
on drugs committed to "eliminating or significantly reducing the
illicit cultivation of the coca bush, the cannabis plant, and the
opium poppy by the year 2008." A decade later, the production of and
demand for these substances are essentially the same, Nadelmann says.

While the heated debate over legalization rages on, something can be
done in the meantime to ease the ill effects of this stalemate. By
concentrating less resources on enforcing the criminalization aspect
of drug policy, such as the cost of imprisonment, the United States
can devote more funding to demand reduction and harm reduction programs.

While curbing demand for anything is extremely difficult, it has been
done successfully. Take the case of smoking. Beginning in 1965,
public service campaigns determined to highlight the risks of
cigarette smoking hit the airwaves. Since then, smoking rates have
been cut in half. Certainly some of the credit for this belongs to
demand reduction efforts.

The harm reduction piece of the equation comes in the form of both
prevention and rehabilitation. Syringe-exchange programs, the
availability of antidotes and medication, and the expanded use of
drug treatment facilities all are supported by groups such as the
American Medical Association. Additionally, the expansion of these
programs generally saves taxpayer money, as they are more economical
front-end methods of spending that reduce back-end spending such as
criminal justice and health care costs.

While such measures have been taken in the United States, they have
also been slow in overcoming political inertia. The stigma associated
with drug use and the power of social conservatism have made it
politically advantageous to cling to the "War on Drugs" rhetoric, and
treat substance abuse as a moral sin that must be eradicated. As a
result, programs that seek to help addicts rather than punish them
have had a difficult time getting enacted.

The repercussions of this should not be written off. According to
Mathea Falco, the president of Drug Strategies, a nonprofit research
institute, "Federal support for demand reduction is now about one
third of the total drug budget, and treatment is available for only
one in three of those who need help."

While adopting more public health strategies won't come close to
ending the problems of drug abuse, it is a step in the right
direction, and one that is long overdue.