ILLEGAL DRUGS: TO BAN OR NOT TO BAN?

THE GLOBAL illegal drug industry is an octopus-like cancer that penetrates
to the hearts of its victims. We don't understand why people turn to drugs
with such disastrous results. If only its customers could be weaned away
and new victims discouraged, the vile industry would wither on the vine.
The main attacks against this terrible curse have been against drug
producers and suppliers. It may be time to shift the emphasis to the customers.

There is growing interest in legalizing illegal drugs, and suprising
progress in banning tobacco. Yet most governments still use methods that
make the cure worse than the disease.

Some 80 years ago, the United States prohibited the sale of alcohol, but
allowed possession of it for home use. That 13-year unenforceable policy
showed how a ban can distort and corrupt law enforcement, encourage the
emergence of gangs and gang wars and the spread of crime, endanger civil
liberties and frustrate public health by making it impossible to regulate
the quality of a widely consumed product. Current drug wars have achieved
all of these on a global scale.

Change, if it comes, will begin slowly. Governments find it hard to
liberalize their approach to drugs. Any politician who advocates it runs
the risk of being "smeared" as favouring the taking of drugs. Similar
dilemmas once held true for homosexuality, divorce and abortion; yet on all
three, the law and public opinion have shifted. Opinion on drugs is now
shifting. Perhaps the United States' experience with "prohibition" may be
repeated with drugs. At the time of the 1928 American election, prohibition
enjoyed solid support; four years later, the public mood had swung to
overwhelming rejection of prohibition. Once started, change often moves
swiftly.

First, move slowly but firmly to dismantle the draconian edifice of
enforcement. Start with the possession and sale of cannabis and
amphetamines and experiment with various strategies, with tough bans on
advertising and with full legal liability for any consequent health risk.
Then move on to hard drugs sold through licensed outlets that might be
pharmacies or even mail-order distributors. After all, that is how growing
numbers of people get prescription drugs. Removing the ban on possession
would make it easier to regulate drug quality, to treat health effects for
overuse and to punish drug users only if they commit crimes against people
or property.

Governments allow their citizens the freedom to do many potentially
self-destructive things: to go bungee jumping, to ride motorcycles and
ATVs, to own guns, to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes. Most of these are
more dangerous to the individual than drug taking.

Should the ultimate goal of reform be to put now-illegal drugs on a par
with alcohol and tobacco? That would mean legalizing both possession and
trading. It makes no sense to legalize one and not the other. There must be
restrictions on access to the most vicious drugs that reflect their
inherent dangers, and insistence on continuous quality controls.

Many people understandably recoil at such a prospect. Doubtless, legalizing
drugs would increase the number of people who take them, whatever
restrictions would be applied. It's hard to make them "hole-proof" and it
would give rise to extremely difficult distribution problems. Prices would
be much lower and access to drugs would be easier, but there is no reason
quality could not be guaranteed. The social stigma against use of drugs
would diminish and commercialization would encourage extended usage. In no
time, the market would be backed by political contributions, just as those
for alcohol and tobacco have been for so long. There is also a fear that
anything available to adults will be available to children. Drugs might
come to be used as widely as alcohol. These are extremely disturbing
possibilities, but they may become realistic expectations.

Legalization would redistribute the harm caused by drugs. Poor people
would, on balance, be better off, even if more of them used drugs, if they
were no longer imprisoned repeatedly for use or possession of drugs.

No one is able to predict with confidence that any or all of these fears
would materialize. But there is a dark cloud of uncertainty hanging over
us, creating a very difficult situation in which to formulate and put in
place any kind of long-term policy. Nobody knows with certainty what drives
the demand for drugs. Fashions come and fashions go, and the use of illegal
drugs fluctuates, not always proportionately to enforcement enthusiasm.
Drug usage is very sensitive to social trends such as crime, unmarried
motherhood, broken families, parent absence or neglect, decline of
religious observances, failure to accept personal responsibility and the
"me first" self-indulgent society. These create a need for "pacifiers" for
relief from social stress. Drugs often fill that role.

An even bigger question is: Can our self-satisfaction society survive or is
it already on the slippery slope of self-destruction as we slide deeper
into the consuming bog of individual self-preservation and satisfaction,
deaf to the inescapable truism that to enjoy any right, you must accept and
discharge the accompanying responsibility? Nothing is really free. There
will always be someone who must pay.

Drugs are basically problems for individuals. They can best be solved by
individuals supported by other individuals. That is where we may find the
answers that have eluded us for so long. But it won't be easy and the war
won't be short.

Bill Cox, QC, lives in Halifax.