LEGALIZE DRUGS TO REDUCE CRIME

Given the general perception that a tsunami of violent crime is
sweeping Solano County, the Fairfield City Council did the right thing
by voting to hire 10 additional police officers, six of whom would be
part of crime suppression unit, with others directed toward domestic
violence.

Putting badges on the street will not solve our crime problem, but it
made me feel better about walking the dog at night. That changed a few
days later few days later when I opened my morning newspapers.

On its front page, the San Francisco Chronicle ran a story of an
84-year-old widow in the Mission District who was held prisoner in her
own apartment while gang members dealt drugs and even ate her senior
meals.

The Daily Republic ran a front-page story about a Suisun City woman
whose identify was stolen by a couple of "lovebirds" down the street
to finance their methamphetamine addictions.

One might almost conclude that there's a nexus between drug money and
crime.

To confirm my suspicions, I went to the experts, my third-period
class, to ask what percentage of local crime results from the drug
trade. After a heated discussion in which the expression "He had it
coming!" was used several times, they issued their verdict - 80
percent, about double that reported by reliable sources.

If America wants to reduce its violent crime rate, nothing could have
greater impact than the replacement of our absurdly expensive,
ineffective and unnecessary War on Drugs with a simple program of
regulation and taxation, similar to that applied to alcohol.

The illegal drugs themselves - heroine, cocaine, meth, and others -
are similar to alcohol in that they are very dangerous if used
irresponsibly, but none poses nearly the health risk of tobacco, which
is legal even though it kills about 390,000 Americans each year.

A Libertarian might argue that it's an undue intrusion on his personal
rights for the government to dictate which drugs he may inject or
ingest into his own body.

The fact is, our national drug policy sprang from fear, and it remains
at odds with science and pragmatic social policy. Our nation's very
first drug ordinance was passed in San Francisco in 1875 when city
fathers banned opium dens because they feared that white women would
be "lured to ruin" by Chinese men.

The first federal statute governing hard drugs, the Harrison Act of
1914, merely issued regulations for licensing and taxing the
manufacture and distribution of drugs. Only later, under the influence
of the same moralizers that brought you Prohibition, were drugs banned
entirely.

Today, America fights evil on several fronts, and the War on Drugs is
faring even worse than the other battles. Federal and state
governments will spend almost $50 billion to fight drugs.

The effect has been counterproductive - to raise the price of drugs
and the profitability of the drug trade, incentivizing criminality.
This results in a spiraling prison population where non-violent
offenders go to be schooled in more sophisticated crime.

If the federal government were to legalize drugs, it could make them
less deadly by standardizing purity and by adding warning labels. But
the greatest positive effect would come from reducing both the market
value of drugs and social cost of drug-related crime. Junkies would
not have to steal your car to get a fix, and dealers would be unemployed.

No country has decriminalized drug use, but the Netherlands has moved
in that direction. After experiencing violent heroine wars in the
1970s, the Dutch evolved toward an emphasis on treatment rather than
upon repression. Yet Dutch rates of drug use are lower than U.S. rates
in every category.

I'll be visiting the Netherlands this summer to evaluate the
situation, but I will do so only under the strict clinical supervision
of my wife.

Randy Carlson is a longtime Solano County resident and a teacher at
Armijo High School.