LOOKING FOR HONESTY IN THE WAR ON DRUGS

The United States needs to call for an armistice in the war on drugs
and move towards legalization. Alarmists argue that drug use would
skyrocket, yet numerous reports show that this is not the case. For
example, a 1990 U.S. telephone survey of 1,401 adults found that under
legalization, 90.4 percent would not try marijuana, and 98.3 percent
would not try cocaine. Based on addiction estimates, this means that
99.54 percent of adults in the United States would not be addicted to
marijuana, and 99.83 percent would not be addicted to cocaine.

Even when cocaine was legal and widely available in the United States
(pre-1914 Harrison Act), per capita dependence was lower than what it
is today. There are other factors besides the law which inhibit people
from using drugs. Drug expert Robert J. MacCoun has suggested, "Even
in the absence of formal legal controls, informal social-control and
self-control factors might prevent most people from serious drug
involvement." Proponents of war on drugs largely ignore this reality.

State and federal governments are spending $35 billion a year on drug
control. At least three-fourths of this is used to apprehend and
punish drug dealers and users. Each additional drug-offending inmate
costs $75,000 in new prison construction and another $25,000 a year to
house and feed. A shift toward decriminalization and drug treatment
would be more fiscally responsible. Cost-benefit ratios for public
drug treatment programs range from $3 to $7 for each dollar of
funding. Best of all, drug excise taxes could be used to support
treatment programs.

Also, legalization would allow for regulation of such drugs.
Currently, most heroin overdoses are a result of uncertainty of
potency, which would be avoided in a regulated market. Moreover, in an
effort to curb the spread of HIV, legalization would allow the United
States to follow Britain's lead in providing free needles to its addicts.

Further studies could be done to determine the practicality of using
marijuana and cocaine for medicinal purposes. Studies have already
concluded that marijuana is effective in improving the appetites of
AIDS and cancer patients and that cocaine can be used as an anesthetic
in throat and eye operations.

It would be fatuous to assume that a change in policy would eliminate
all harms associated with drug usage. Utopia does not exist. However,
superior alternatives to the ill-advised status quo do exist. The
strategy that best promotes overall harm reduction must be pursued.
Regulated and restricted legalization, coupled with increased drug
education and treatment opportunities, are the most logical responses
to this conundrum.

As myopic as today's politicians may be, they are not purblind to the
point of actually believing in the current strategy. Rather, their
hands are tied. They are stuck pandering to what their constituents
ask for. A 1995 Gallup poll of U.S. citizens revealed that 84 percent
favored "making criminal penalties more severe for the possession and
sale of drugs."

It is no coincidence that the vast majority of drug legislation has
been enacted in election years. In the months leading up to the 1986
midterm elections, Congress worked on a sweeping anti-drug measure
that was signed by Ronald Reagan just days before voters went to the
polls. Congressional Quarterly commented, "Republicans and Democrats
all across the country are trying to outdo each other ... to see who
can propose the most stringent punishments for drug infractions." Rep.
Dave McCurdy, D-Okla., conceded that the 1986 drug bill was "out of
control," yet voted for it anyway.

The 1988 bill was no different. Representative Tim Valentine, D-N.C.,
regarded it as the "seeds of national disaster." Yet he admitted,
"Rather than have people say, 'Well, that guy, he's in favor of
drugs,' I'll hold my nose and go along with the others." The outspoken
John McCain R-Ariz. commented, "This is such an emotional issue ...
that voting 'no' would be too difficult to explain." New York State
Representative Charles Schumer said, "It's quick-hit image over
substance, and nobody cares if it's going to work."

"We have to be tougher on those who commit crimes. We have to get
after the users more,"Bush (Sr.) said during the presidential debates
in 1988. Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis countered this by
suggesting that he had "a program for being tough ... doubling the
number of drug enforcement agents." This constant election year
competition for who can be the toughest on drugs just escalates the
war further and further.

Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik states that under
his leadership, "Nonviolent drug offenders would be released from
federal prison, and each state would choose its own drug policy." As
the 2004 election will prove, sometimes a third party is needed to
advocate such necessary but controversial reforms.

Rich Page is a 2004 graduate of Tulane College and now studies public
policy at the University of Chicago.