THE COCAINE CONVERSATION: BALANCING THE DRUG DEBATE

In December, a Pennsylvania teenager asked Obama if he had considered
legalizing drugs to stimulate the economy. The audience broke into
laughter, and Obama deflected after complimenting the boy's "boldness."

I posed a similar question to Jack Riley, a senior member of the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) and a panelist at last week's "Within
our Borders: The Mexican Drug War" event hosted by Sigma Iota Rho. I
asked how the War on Drugs continues to be a good use of U.S. resources
and wondered if violence could be neutralized in this and other
countries by legalizing and regulating illicit substances as part of the
formal economy (I realize that President Obama has shied from using this
terminology for ideological reasons. In the DEA, though, this change has
been interpreted as purely nomenclature).

He cited social reasons, such as addiction problems and the breakdown
of the nuclear community to defend the War on Drugs. "I have seen
drugs do terrible things," he rued. We waited as he ruminated through
an archive of disparaging memories, but he seemed to shake these as he
reached for the next question. Frustrating.

Instead of fleshing out an argument that has been routinely pushed
aside, Riley justified the War on Drugs with a weak morality that does
not overcome the extensive reasons to end it. His are the same
absolutions made to advocate failed policies: Prohibition and
censorship were also defended by a patrimonial concern for people's
welfare. It's a nebulous reasoning which cannot withstand the tornado
of economic, political and diplomatic impetuses to stop the war. Thus,
I figured I would help Mr. Riley (and his like-minded colleagues)
develop an argument that moves beyond abstract sensationalisms and
into one which addresses its counter on more substantial levels.

I apologize if my premise suggests a hunger for drugs or controversy.
I (usually) want neither of these. I do want answers. I want a
rationalization for a War on Drugs that spends an exorbitant amount of
tax dollars, exhausts a huge amount of manpower, and ignites more
violence than it quells. So, I decided to lend critical thinking and
some skills from high school debate team to bolster the pro-war
argument to compete in a fair and balanced discussion. I would prefer
a justification for the War on Drugs that can compete with the
substantial argument to end it. Social and moral explanations can no
longer stand against the economic havoc wreaked on governments in the
absence of drug revenue and the extreme violence resulting from the
struggle between the black market actors and the American-supported
police forces. The other side, in the form of Jack Riley, has more
evidence in his arsenal than he demonstrated at Wednesday's debate.

Before we proceed, allow me to qualify the opposition: Domestic
prohibition of drugs and foreign military aid total a huge amount of
annual spending. A Harvard economist estimated that legalizing drugs
would save the government $76.8 billion per year in police power,
convict incarcerations and tax revenue (Conducted by Jeffrey A. Miron
in 2008). In Colombia, that figure becomes even more significant. The
cocaine trade contributes an estimated 7.6 percent to the annual GDP.
As long as U.S. presence continues there, that money remains untaxed
and the government loses significant revenue.

The opposition believes that drug use should be a consumer's
prerogative. They liken drugs to legal mind-altering substances and
believe that the government has drawn an arbitrary line between
illicit and permissible materials. The justifications for scaling back
the drug war appeal to the entire political spectrum: (fiscal)
conservatives will appreciate cuts in government spending,
libertarians don't support government restrictions, and liberals would
find appeal in restrictions on police funding. Convincing, huh? The
asymmetrical argument seems to benefit advocates of legalizing drugs.
They have economic, political and social evidence to support their
claims.

These circumstances require a more substantial counter-argument. Mr.
Riley, I recommend you start on neutral, relatable levels. Appeal to
economic and political instead of social and moral rationales. For
example:

Drugs impede productivity. If one employee comes to work under the
influence, he or she will accomplish less and in some instances,
endanger him-or herself and other workers. When those actions
aggregate to a drugged workforce, serious consequences can result.
Should we legalize drugs, monetary gains made by tax revenue and
enforcement expenses could be negated by slashes to the GDP and
debilitation of the workforce.

Health care also adds an important anti-drug element: People hurt
themselves using drugs. Each drug brings its own set of problems, but
any logical person can estimate that drugs are detrimental to one's
health. Now that health care works on a nationalized level, drug
injuries will cost all taxpayers.

Violence presents another pillar of persuasion. Legalizing a carrier
amount or decriminalizing certain carrier amounts sets the black
market aflame. Breached drug deals often result in struggle between
subversive actors. Furthermore, amphetamine highs lead to a higher
propensity towards reckless violence and confrontational attitudes.
Violence costs taxpayers in police and enforcement expenses, and
injuries incurred by dissidents will show up in healthcare costs.

Diplomatically, Mr. Riley, I would recommend you keep a message of
mutual beneficence. Calls of American Imperialism can be met with
enumerating results achieved by U.S.-sponsored eradication programs
and enforcement interventionism. Drug wars have ruined democratic
systems in Colombia, Mexico and Bolivia. Leaders of cartels earn
enough money to bribe politicians and promote chaos through violence
on the streets. The efforts of the DEA take money and power from
government subversives and foster democracies into more legitimate and
functional entities.

Mr. Riley, drugs do hurt people and communities. But they can also
damage the workforce, rack up healthcare bills, ignite violence, and
threaten the sanctity of democracy in ally countries. Be creative! You
have spades of information with which to defend your livelihood. Move
beyond heartbreaking didactic tales and meet the drug debate with
tangible counter-points. Illustrate with bold and assertive hand
gestures! Your emotional tactics encourage a blind and irrational
adherence to your impassioned logic. You're perusing a strategy of
evasion that relies on strong principles and weak facts. I believe
that you can substantiate an anti-drug argument with more than
morality and sensationalisms. Expand to meet your oppositions in
realms of real debate and you might find that you'll satisfy your
tie-dyed, sandaled opponent before moving on to the next question.