THE CASE AGAINST LEGALIZATION

The U.N.'s Drug Czar On Supply And Demand

Legalization? the member states of the united nations vote "No." Making all
controlled substances readily available is a risk society clearly wants to
avoid. Instead, as expressed in the three U.N. conventions on controlling
drugs, we should insist that our governments pursue a balanced strategy on
drugs, giving attention to both supply and demand. This approach was
soundly endorsed by the U.N. General Assembly last year in its Special
Session on drugs. Still, the legalization debate continues. Let's examine
the arguments.

First, the medical argument. No one disagrees that many controlled
substances have legitimate and completely legal medical applications. But
there are various degrees of control, based on the degree of risk involved.
In an ideal world, the risk would be determined on scientific grounds. In
the real world, cultural and political factors also matter. The U.N.
conventions reflect that; they can be amended in response to a consensus
shift concerning the appropriate degree of control over given substances.

Proponents of legalization cite the link between drugs and crime. It's true
that short-term crime rates would fall if illegal drug markets disappeared.
But the big-time criminals would quickly regroup and find other sources of
profits--as they are already doing by expanding into corruption, extortion
and trafficking in human beings. On the other hand, legalization would
certainly increase the rate of abuse. After the introduction of legal opium
into China, more than one quarter of the adult male population smoked it.
These days, the easy availability and cheap price of heroin--made from
opium produced mainly in neighboring Afghanistan--has given Pakistan one of
the world's highest heroin-addiction rates. The same problem is occurring
in Iran, where there are now 1 million addicts--about the same number as in
Western Europe.

Advocates of legalization often argue that alcohol and tobacco cause more
harm to society--higher death rates, higher medical costs--than outlawed
drugs. This is correct. But so what? Research has shown that, out of the
100 million U.S. alcohol consumers, 15 percent suffer long-term
consequences. Heroin, unlike tobacco and alcohol, causes long-term
consequences--as addiction--for almost all the people who use it.

Until recently, most drug-control efforts concentrated on eliminating the
supply, by hitting the trafficking routes and the source of raw materials.
Today, policymakers unanimously believe that supply and demand must be
addressed. There are signs that this may be working. In Europe, for
example, heroin-use rates are static, and the average age of addicts is
steadily increasing. In the United States, there has been a strong decrease
of cocaine addiction. The next generation may be getting the message.