http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n636.a02.html (1)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n637.a01.html (2)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n637.a02.html (3)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n638.a01.html (4)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n638.a02.html (5)

THE DRUG LEGALIZATION MOVEMENT IN AMERICA (continued from part one)

During this period, drug use and addiction increased sharply. While there
are no comprehensive studies of drug abuse for this period that are on par
with our current National Household Survey on Drug Abuse and Monitoring the
Future studies, we can, for example, extrapolate increases in opium use
from opium imports, which were tracked.[46] Yale University's Dr. David
Musto, one of the leading experts on the patterns of drug use in the United
States, writes: "The numbers of those overusing opiates must have increased
during the nineteenth century as the per capita importation of crude opium
increased from less than 12 grains annually in the 1840s to more than 52
grains in the 1890s."[47] Only in the 1890s when societal concerns over and
disapproval of drug use began to become widespread and triggered legal
responses did these rates level off.[48] Until this change in attitudes
began to denormalize drug use, the United States experienced over a 400
percent increase in opium use alone. This jump is even more staggering if
one considers that during this period other serious drugs, such as cocaine,
were also widely available in every-day products.

Moreover, while we do not believe that the period of prohibition on alcohol
is directly analogous to current efforts against drugs,[49] our experiences
with alcohol prohibition also raise parallel concerns. While prohibition
was not without its flaws, during this period alcohol usage fell to between
30 to 50 percent of its pre-prohibition levels.[50] From 1916 to 1919 (just
prior to prohibition went into effect in 1920), U.S. alcohol consumption
averaged 1.96 gallons per person per year.[51] During prohibition, alcohol
use fell to a low of .90 gallons per person per year.[52] In the decade
that followed prohibition's repeal, alcohol use increased to a per capita
annual average of 1.54 gallons and has since steadily risen to 2.43 gallons
in 1989. 53 Prohibition also substantially reduced the rates of
alcohol-related illnesses.[54]

The United States has tried drug legalization and rejected it several times
now because of the suffering it brings. The philosopher Santayana was right
in his admonition that "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to
repeat it." Let us not now be so foolish as to once again consider this
well worn, dead-end path.

C. The Impact on Youth

Most importantly the legalization of drugs in the United States would lead
to a disproportionate increase in drug use among young people. In 1975, the
Alaskan Supreme Court invalidated certain sections of the state's criminal
code pertaining to the possession of marijuana. Based on this finding, from
1975 to 1991, possession of up to four ounces of the drug by an adult who
was lawfully in the state of Alaska became legal.[55] Even though marijuana
remained illegal for children, marijuana use rates among Alaskan youth
increased significantly.[56] In response, concerned Alaskans, in particular
the National Federation of Parents for Drug-Free Youth, sponsored an
anti-drug referendum that was approved by the voters in 1990, once again
rendering marijuana illegal.

In addition to the impact of expanded availability, legalization would have
a devastating effect on how our children see drug use. Youth drug use is
driven by attitudes. When young people perceive drugs as risky and socially
unacceptable youth drug use drops. Conversely, when children perceive less
risk and greater acceptability in using drugs, their use increases. If
nothing else, legalization would send a strong message that taking drugs is
a safe and socially accepted behavior that is to be tolerated among our
peers, loved ones and children. Such a normalization would play a major
role in softening youth attitudes and, ultimately, increasing drug use. The
significant increases in youth drug use that would accompany legalization
are particularly troubling because their effects would be felt over the
course of a generation or longer. Without help, addictions last a lifetime.
Every additional young person we allow to become addicted to drugs will
impose tremendous human and fiscal burdens on our society. Legalization
would be a usurious debt upon our society's future -- the costs of such an
approach would mount exponentially with each new addict, and over each new
day.

D. The Impact of Drug Prices

If drugs were legalized, we can also expect that the attendant drop in drug
prices to cause drug use rates to grow as drugs become increasingly
affordable to buy.[57] Currently a gram of cocaine sells for between $150
and $200 on U.S. streets.[58] The cost of cocaine production is as low as
$3 per gram.[59] In order to justify legalization, the market cost for
legalized cocaine would have to be set so low as to make the black market,
or bootleg cocaine, economically unappealing.[60] Assume, for argument
sake, that the market price was set at $10 per gram, a three hundred
percent plus markup over cost, each of the fifty hits of cocaine in that
gram could retail for as little as ten cents.

With the cost of "getting high" so as low as a dime (ten cents) -- about
the cost of a cigarette -- the price of admission to drug use would be no
obstacle to anyone even considering it.[61] However, each of these "dime"
users risks a life-long drug dependence problem that will cost them, their
families, and our society tens of thousands of dollars.

In addition to the impact on youth, we would also expect to see falling
drug prices drive increasing drug use among the less affluent. Among these
individuals the price of drug use -- even at today's levels -- remains a
barrier to entry into use and addiction. The impact of growing use within
these populations could be severe. Many of these communities are already
suffering the harms of drug use -- children who see no other future turning
to drugs as an escape, drug dealers driving what remains of legitimate
business out of their communities, and families being shattered by a loved
one hooked on drugs. Increased drug use would set back years of individual,
local, state and federal efforts to sweep these areas clean of drugs and
build new opportunities.

FALLACY: Drug legalization would reduce the harm of drug use on our society.

REALITY: DRUG LEGALIZATION WOULD COST BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND RISK MILLIONS
OF ADDITIONAL INNOCENT LIVES.

By increasing the rates of drug abuse, legalization would exact a
tremendous cost on our society. If drugs were legalized, the United States
would see significant increases in the number of drug users, the number of
drug addicts, and the number of people dying from drug- related causes.

While many of these costs would fall first and foremost on the user,
countless other people would also suffer if drugs were legalized. Contrary
to what libertarians and legalizers would have us believe, drug use is not
a victimless crime.

A. Increases in Child Abuse and Neglect

Innocent children suffer the most from drug abuse. In No Safe Havens,
experts from Columbia University's Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse
found that substance abuse (including drugs and alcohol) exacerbates seven
of every ten child abuse or neglect cases.[62] In the last ten years,
driven by substance abuse, the number of abused and neglected children has
more than doubled, up from 1.4 million in 1986 to three million in
1997.[63] In 1994, the American Journal of Public Health reported that
children whose parents abuse drugs or alcohol are four times more likely to
be neglected and/or abused than children with parents who were not drug
abusing.[64]

If drugs were made legal, among the growing ranks of the addicted will be
scores of people with children. Given the clear linkage between rates of
addiction and child abuse and neglect, more drug use will cause tens of
thousands of additional children to suffer from abuse and neglect as
parents turn away from their children to chase their habit.

B. Increases in Drugged Driving Accidents Over the last ten years,
Americans have grown increasingly aware of the death toll related to
drinking and driving. While we focus less on the risks of drugged-driving,
the fact is that if the driver on the road next to you is drugged, you and
whoever is riding with you are at risk. A National Transportation Safety
Board study of 182 fatal truck accidents revealed that 12.5 percent of the
drivers had used marijuana, in comparison to 12.5 percent who used alcohol,
8.5 percent who used cocaine and 7.9 percent who used stimulants.[65]
Illegal drugs (marijuana, cocaine, and stimulants combined) were present in
more accidents than alcohol -- even though alcohol is legal and far more
available. "A study of 440 drivers, ages 15 to 34 years old, who were
killed in California during a two-year period detected alcohol and
marijuana in one-third of victims. More than one-half consumed a drug or
drugs other than alcohol."[66]

Historically, we believe that impaired drivers drive more recklessly. A
1995 roadside study conducted in Memphis, Tennessee of reckless drivers not
believed to be impaired by alcohol, found that 45 percent tested positive
for marijuana.[67]

Most disturbingly, drugged driving often appears among the most
inexperienced drivers, namely young people. The 1996 National Household
Survey on Drug Abuse found that 13 percent of young people aged sixteen to
twenty drove a car less than two hours after drug use at least once during
the past year.[68] These young drivers are generally unaware of the dangers
they present to themselves and others. Among 16 to 20 year olds who drove
after marijuana use, 57 percent said they did so because they were not
"high enough to cause a crash."[69]

When a person using drugs takes the wheel, his drug use is likely to have
human costs. Not only is the drugged driver at risk, but all those around
him are as well. On January 29, 1999, a car with five young girls -- high
school juniors in a middle class suburb of Philadelphia -- crashed into a
tree, killing the driver and the other occupants.[70] The medical
examiners report concluded that the driver lost control of the car not
because of speed or inexperience but because she was impaired from
"huffing" -- inhaling a chemical solvent -- to get high. Three of the
passengers were also found to have used the drug. Five more young people,
all with bright futures, are dead because of drug use behind the wheel.

If drugs were legalized the rate of drugged driving would increase. Added
to the countless tragedies caused by drinking and driving would be scores
of deaths and injuries from people taking legalized drugs and driving while
impaired.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
there were 16,189 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in 1997 (38.6 percent
of the total traffic fatalities for the year).[71] NHTSA also reports that
in 1997, more than 327,000 people were injured in auto crashes where police
reported that alcohol was present.[72] These tragic statistics make
abundantly clear the risks we would face if other drugs, such as heroin,
marijuana and LSD, were made legal and widely available.

C. Increases in Workplace Accidents, Decreasing Productivity

Just as drug impairment behind the wheel puts others at risk, so too does
impairment on the job. Since over 60 percent of drug users in the United
States are employed,[73] it is not surprising that workplace drug use is a
significant problem. According to a 1995 Gallup survey, 35 percent of
American employees report having seen drug use on-the-job by
co-workers.[74] One-in-ten report having been offered drugs while at
work.[75] Drug use in the workplace diminishes productivity and increases
costs.[76] Drug using employees are more likely to have taken an unexcused
absence in the last month, and are more likely to change or leave a
job.[77] The National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism estimated that the cost to our nation's
productivity from illegal drug use was $69.4 billion in 1992.[78]
Increasing rates of drug use burden our economy as a whole. They also place
businesses, in particular small businesses, at risk. In the end, it is the
American consumer who ultimately pays these costs. When drugs are mixed
with the heavy machinery of industry, the results can be devastating. In
1987, a Conrail freight train operated by an engineer who had been smoking
marijuana struck an Amtrak passenger train, killing sixteen people and
injuring more than one- hundred.[79] Last July, a passenger train and a
truck carrying steel coils collided.[80] The driver of the truck, who was
cited by police for more than a dozen violations relating to the crash,
tested positive for marijuana immediately following the accident. The
collision dislodged one of the twenty-ton coils, causing it to roll through
the train's first passenger compartment, killing three and injuring
others.[81]

Highly publicized disasters like these capture the public's attention.
However, the harms of drug abuse build incrementally on job sites all
across the nation, every day. Utah Power & Light employees who tested
positive on pre-employment drug tests were five times more likely to be
involved in a workplace accident than those who tested negative.[82] The
1995 Gallup survey similarly found that 42 percent of American employees
believe that drug use greatly affects workplace safety.[83] Even these
numbers are likely to underestimate the harms caused by drugs on-the-job;
for a variety of reasons drug-related on-the-job injuries are likely
under-reported.

One way to factor the risks presented by on-the-job drug use is to
extrapolate from the rate at which drug-free workplace programs can reduce
job-related accidents. For example, the Boeing corporation's drug-free
workplace program has saved over $2 million in employee medical claims.[84]
At Southern Pacific railroad, the injury rate dropped 71 percent with the
development of a drug-free workplace assistance program.[85] One of the
major auto manufacturers has reported 82 percent decline in job-related
accidents since implementing an employee substance abuse assistance
program. Similarly, an Ohio study found that substance abuse treatment
programs significantly reduced on-the-job injuries.[86] If job- related
drug assistance programs can prevent such high rates of accidents, it
follows that drugs cause large numbers of injuries among America's employees.

If drugs were made legal, use -- including on-the-job drug use -- will
increase. Growing numbers of drug users operating heavy equipment, driving
tractor-trailers, and operating buses, would inevitably lead to greater
numbers of workplace injuries. While the impaired drug user is most at risk
from their own actions, countless innocent people -- co-workers and
ordinary citizens -- would also face added dangers. Additionally, apart
from the human costs, significantly increased numbers of on-the-job
drug-related accidents would cost the American economy countless millions
- -- ranging from rising insurance costs, to personal injury settlements, to
losses through decreased productivity.

FALLACY: Drugs are harmful because they are illegal.

REALITY: DRUGS ARE HARMFUL NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE ILLEGAL; THEY ARE ILLEGAL
BECAUSE THEY ARE HARMFUL.

Critics argue that the harm to our society from drugs, such as the costs of
crime, could be reduced if drugs were legalized. The logic is flawed. By
increasing the availability of drugs, legalization would dramatically
increase the harm to innocent people. With more drugs and drug use in our
society, there would be more drug-related child abuse, more drugged driving
fatalities, and more drug-related workplace accidents. None of these harms
are caused by law or law enforcement but by illegal drugs.

Even with respect to the crime-related impact of drugs, drug-related crimes
are driven far more by addiction than by the illegality of drugs. Law
enforcement doesnt cause people to steal to support their habits; they
steal because they need money to fuel an addiction -- a drug habit that
often precludes them from earning an honest living. Even if drugs were
legal, people would still steal and prostitute themselves to pay for
addictive drugs and support their addicted lifestyles. Dealers don't deal
to children because the law makes it illegal; dealers deal to kids to build
their market by hooking them on a life-long habit at an early age, when
drugs can be marketed as cool and appealing to young people who have not
matured enough to consider the real risks. Make no mistake: legalizing
drugs won't stop pushers from selling heroin and other drugs to kids.
Legalization will, however, increase drug availability and normalize
drug-taking behavior, which will increase the rates of youth drug abuse.

For example, although the Dutch have adopted a more tolerant approach to
illegal drugs, crime is in many cases increasing rapidly in Holland. The
most recent international police data (1995) shows that Dutch per capita
rates for breaking and entering, a crime closely associated with drug
abuse, are three times the rate of those in Switzerland and the United
States, four times the French rate, and 50 percent greater than the German
rate.[87] "A 1997 report on hard-drug use in the Netherlands by the
government-financed Trimbos Institute acknowledged that 'drug use is
considered the primary motivation behind crimes against property' -- 23
years after the Dutch [drug] policy was supposed to put a brake on
that."[88] Moreover, Foreign Affairs recently noted that in areas of
Holland where youth cannabis smokers are most prevalent, such as Amsterdam,
Utrecht and Rotterdam, the rates of juvenile crime have "witnessed
skyrocketing growth" over the last three to four years.[89] Statistics from
the Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics indicate that between 1978 and 1992,
there was a gradual, steady increase in violence of more than 160 percent.[90]

In contrast, crime rates in the United States are rapidly dropping. For
example, the rate of drug-related murders in the United States has hit a
ten-year low.[91] In 1989, there were 1,402 drug-related murders. By 1997
that number fell to 786. In 1995, there were 581,000 robberies in the
United States. By 1997, that number fell to roughly 498,000.[92]

America's criminal justice system is not the root cause of drug-related
crime. It is the producers, traffickers, pushers, gangs and enforcers who
are to blame, as are all the people who use drugs and never think about the
web of criminality and suffering their drug money supports.

FALLACY: We are fighting a war on drugs.

REALITY: OUR BALANCED EFFORTS AGAINST DRUGS ARE ANALOGOUS TO THE FIGHT
AGAINST CANCER.

Wars have defined end states -- victory over an enemy. Our efforts against
drugs have no such neatly defined end; with each generation the struggle to
prevent drug use begins anew. Addicted Americans -- parents, siblings, and
children -- are not the enemy, they require treatment. Wars are waged with
weapons and soldiers; prevention and treatment are our primary tools
against drugs. Consequently, our efforts tho reduce drug use are analogous
to the fight against cancer.

Nevertheless, an effective counter-drug strategy must focus on both supply
and demand reduction. Supply-side efforts (law enforcement and
interdiction) are necessary because, as basic economic rules dictate,
unabated supply will ultimately create its own demand. However, those of us
who have experienced combat know that such supply-side efforts are a far
cry from "war." In fact, the use of civilian authorities to protect against
drugs is no more war-like than the same role these same police officers
play in combating robberies, car thefts, or domestic violence. It is sheer
folly to suggest that when a police officer patrols a neighborhood to stop
these other crimes he is doing a community service, however when he finds
drugs, his efforts somehow become part of a conjured up "drug war."

FALLACY: Our current approach to drugs is not making a difference.

REALITY: WE ARE MAKING STRONG, STEADY PROGRESS IN REDUCING DRUG USE AND
PREVENTING YOUNG PEOPLE FROM TURNING TO DRUGS.

Rather than trade rhetoric, we should focus on results:

! Over the last twenty years we have cut drug use (past month) in the
United States by half and reduced cocaine use by 75 percent (past month).[93]

! Over the last two years, youth drug use rates have leveled off and in
many cases have begun to fall. This shift marks a sharp departure from the
prior six years, which saw steady increases in youth drug use. Most
importantly, we have begun to see a sharpening of youth attitudes against
drugs -- youth increasingly see drugs as risky and unacceptable.[94]

! The number of drug-related murders has now hit a ten-year low. In 1989,
there were 1402 drug-related murders; by 1997 that number had fallen to
786. [95]

! Spending on illegal drugs has dropped 37 percent from 1988 to 1995, an
annual savings of $34.1 billion.[96]

Such results against any other societal ill would be called a huge success.
Let me thank the Committee and the Congress as a whole for your bipartisan
support of our counter-drug programs. Without your strong support results
like these would not have been possible.

III. THE SOLUTION TO AMERICA'S DRUG PROBLEM IS THE BALANCED APPROACH
EMBODIED IN OUR NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

There is no simple solution to America's drug problem. In order to
effectively address this problem we must attack both the supply and demand
for drugs. Pursuing one of these goals at the expense of the other will
only unbalance our efforts and reduce the likelihood of success.[97]

The National Drug Control Strategy establishes a multi-year framework to
reduce illegal drug use and availability by 50 percent within ten years. If
this target is achieved, less than 3 percent of the household population
aged twelve and over would use illegal drugs -- the lowest recorded
drug-use rate in modern American history. Drug-related health, economic,
social, and criminal costs would be reduced commensurately. To achieve this
target, the Strategy focuses on prevention, treatment, research, law
enforcement, protection of our borders, and international cooperation.

The National Drug Control Strategy is guided by five goals that cover the
three broad aspects of drug control -- demand reduction, supply reduction,
and the adverse consequences of drug abuse and trafficking. Reducing the
demand for illegal drugs is the centerpiece of our Strategy, but supply
reduction and consequence management are also critical components of a
well-balanced strategic approach to drug control. The five goals reflect
the need for prevention and education to protect all Americans (especially
children) from the perils of drugs, treatment to help the chemically
dependent, law enforcement to bring traffickers and other drug offenders to
justice, interdiction to reduce the flow of drugs into our nation, and
international cooperation to confront drug cultivation, production,
trafficking, and use.

[continued in part three of five parts]