|
![[Under Construction]](images/undercon.gif)
| |
Claims of DEA research
CLAIM I:
Proponents of legalization contend that if drugs were legalized, crime and violence
would decrease. They believe that it is the illegal nature of drug production, trafficking
and use that fuels crime and violence. They state that turf wars, gang activity and
drug-related crimes are the result of the illegal nature of the drug trade. Proponents
state that users commit crimes to pay for drugs now because they cannot easily obtain
them. If drugs were legal, they say, the enormous profits associated with drugs because of
their illegal status would evaporate and, once gone, the black market and criminal
activity associated with drugs would also be eliminated.
Participants in the Anti-Legalization Forum, who are experts in crime and violence,
disagreed strongly with the notion that crime and violence would be reduced if drugs were
legalized. It is widely claimed by those advancing the case for legalization that crime is
largely committed by drug traffickers protecting their turf. Sadly, it is the experience
of many local police officers that crime is committed not only because people want to buy
drugs, but more often because people use drugs. There is no denying the fact that drug use
changes behavior and exacerbates criminal activity.
The experts also believe that legalization will lead to increased availability of
drugs, which will, in turn, lead to increased use. The use of drugs, especially cocaine,
crack, methamphetamine, and PCP, is often associated with violent criminal behavior. There
is ample evidence which demonstrates the links between drugs, violence and crime, and the
links between a currently legal substance--alcohol--and crime are well documented. Police
can attest to the fact that alcohol plays a significant role in domestic violence cases.
Drug use would only swell the statistics regarding crime, even if the drugs were legally
purchased.
Legalization proponents ignore the fact that the people committing violent crimes are
career criminals who will not stop their illegal activities once drugs are legalized; they
will instead seek new sources of illicit revenue. Criminal activity would not be reduced
as a result of drug legalization any more than gangster activity disappeared after the
repeal of Prohibition. The group discussed the fallacy that legalizing drugs would
eliminate the black market environment which seems to fuel the drug trade and its
attendant violence. The existence of a black market is heavily dependent on the parameters
set by the legalizers: which drugs would be legal, the potency level of drugs and the age
at which legal drugs could be purchased. If drugs were legal for persons over 18, for
example, drug traffickers would still target those 17 and younger; if only marijuana were
legalized, drug traffickers would continue to traffic in heroin and cocaine.
Some facts which help to confirm the observations of the forum participants may be used
in debates: A report in the Journal of the American Medical Association (7/6/94) reports
that cocaine use is linked to high rates of homicide in New York City and that
"homicide victims may have provoked violence through irritability, paranoid thinking
or verbal and physical aggression which are known to be pharmacologic effects of
cocaine."
An April, 1994 report titled "Violent Drug-Related Crime" compiled by the Drug
and Crime Data Center and Clearinghouse indicates that drugs are used by many offenders
committing crimes. In 1991, the following percentages of state prison inmates involved in
violent offenses reported that they had used drugs at the time the offense was committed:
 | Data from the National Institute of Justice (U.S. Department of Justice) Drug Use
Forecasting (DUF) program underscore the crime-drugs link. Of a sample of males arrested
in 23 U.S. cities in 1993, the percent testing positive for at least one drug in the DUF
survey ranged from 54% in Omaha to 81% in Chicago. Among female arrestees, the percent
testing positive for any drug in 20 cities ranged from 42% in San Antonio to 83% in
Manhattan.
|
| A May 1993 Bureau of Justice Statistics report states that "Drug use was common
among inmates serving time for burglary, robbery or drug offenses. Among inmates serving a
sentence for burglary or robbery, about 6 in 10 inmates had used drugs in the month before
the arrest for the current offense, and about 4 in 10 were under the influence at the time
of the offense."
|
| The same study indicates that female inmates were more likely than male inmates to have
used drugs in the month before the offense (54% versus 50%) and to have been under the
influence at the time of the offense (36% versus 31%). Another finding of the study
indicated that among 18-49 year old males, those who had used alcohol, cannabis and
cocaine at some point during the past year were ten times more likely to commit a violent
act (26.1 percent versus 2.7 percent) than those who used none of the above.
|
| Mitchell S. Rosenthal, M.D., president of a major New York City drug treatment center,
Phoenix House, and chairman of the New York State Advisory Council on Substance Abuse,
notes that one of the basic contentions of advocates of legalization is that drug users
are essentially normal people. Actually, Dr. Rosenthal said in a speech in 1993, drugs
undo the bounds that keep many seemingly normal people on an even keel. "The
treatment community does not contend that society is at risk from the behavior of all drug
abusers or even the great majority of them," he said. "The case for prohibition
rests on the substantial number of abusers who cross the line from permissible
self-destruction to become 'driven' people, who are 'out of control' and put others in
danger of their risk taking, violence, abuse or HIV infection."
|
| The International Association of Chiefs of Police published a report in 1993 titled
"Violent Crime in America." It states "Drug abuse and crime, both violent
and nonviolent, are linked. National Crime Victimization surveys in 1989 and 1990 revealed
over 2,000,000 crimes committed by offenders under the influence of drugs or
alcohol...this represented 36% and 34% of total violent crime recorded by the
surveys."
|
| Bureau of Justice Statistics surveys indicate that "25% of convicted inmates in
jails, 33% of state prisoners, and 40% of youths in state-operated facilities admit being
under the influence of an illegal drug at the time of their offense" (BJS, Drug and
Crime Facts, 1992)
|
| Data from Bureau of Justice Statistics surveys show that 77.7 percent of jail inmates,
79.6 percent of state prisoners, and 82.7 percent of youths in long-term public juvenile
facilities had used drugs at some point in their lives.
Department of Justice statistics indicate a growing number of young arrestees are
marijuana smokers. Data from 12 major urban areas showed a sharp jump, from 16.5% in 1992
to 26% in 1993, in teenage arrestees who tested positive for marijuana, the Department
said. And this is the modern, high-test marijuana, about three times (sometimes more) the
strength of the 1960s and 1970s weed. Sources:
NIDA, "Heroin," NIDA capsules, August 1986; DEA, Drugs of
abuse, 1989, G.R. Gay, "Clinical management of acute and chronic cocaine poisoning:
Concepts, components and configuration," Annals of emergency medicine, (1982) 11(10);
562-572 as cited in NIDA, Dale D. Chitwood, "Patterns and consequences of cocaine
use, "in Cocaine use in America: Epidemiologic and clinical perspectives, Nicholas J.
Kozel and Edgar H. Adams, eds., NIDA research monograph 61, 1985; NIDA, James A. Inciardi,
"Crack-cocaine in Miami," in The epidemiology of cocaine use and abuse, Susan
Schober and Charles Schade, eds., NIDA research monograph 110, 1991; and NIDA;
"Marijuana," NIDA capsules, August 1986.
|
CLAIM II:
Legalization advocates claim that the fight against drugs has not been won and is, in
fact, unwinnable. They frequently state that people still take drugs, drugs are widely
available, and that changing that is a lost cause. Legalization is the alternative.
The conference participants disagreed with the notion that we should wave the white
flag of surrender because people still take drugs. The experts contended that there have
been many positive developments over the past fifteen years in reducing drug use, and
stated that the good news is often given short shrift. Our drug problem did not happen
overnight, and it will take a number of years to eliminate. Legalization is not an
alternative.
The United States faces a number of challenges today which, like our drug problem, are
not susceptible to easy solutions, including illegal immigration, declining education
quality and public health problems. Should we just post signs on our borders that we've
given up and invite a tide of immigrants in? Should we declare that our education system
has been a failure and give children a permanent vacation from school? Should we throw up
our hands in frustration about AIDS and stop searching for a cure? Of course not.
Americans are a people committed to solving problems, not running from them. Why should
our commitment to stopping drugs be any different from our approach to other national
interests?
Furthermore, ask proponents of legalization just what they are proposing be legalized.
Just marijuana? Marijuana and heroin? All drugs? And for what age group? Will children be
able to buy drugs? Will prescriptions be necessary? And what will they tolerate as the
price of legalization? A permanent underclass of drug users? Will a 10% increase in the
number of traffic fatalities be accepted? What about 50%? Would they be relieved to know
that their child care provider had been smoking legally-purchased marijuana? How many
boarder babies are too many?
Some facts which help to confirm the observations of the forum participants may be used
in debates:
| The 1994 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse demonstrates unequivocally that drug
use declined significantly between 1979 and 1994.
|
| In 1994, an estimated 13 million Americans were current illicit drug users, meaning they
had used an illicit drug in the month prior to the interview. The number of illicit drug
users had been declining until recently since its peak in 1979 at 24 million.
|
| The number of current cocaine users remained at 1.4 million, a slight increase from the
estimated 1.3 million users in 1993 and 1992. This is down from a peak of 5.3 million in
1985.
|
| Since 1979, rates of current illicit drug use have dropped for 12-17 year olds, 18-25
year olds, and 26-34 year olds, but not for the age group 35 and older.
|
| Teenage drug consumption, despite recent upturns, is down in the long term. There is an
obvious concern in the United States about the consumption of drugs by teenagers--the
adults of tomorrow. Recent upturns demonstrate to us the clear need to continue doing what
we've done for more than the past decade: combine law enforcement, education, and
international efforts to address all aspects of the drug situation. The Monitoring the
Future Study, conducted annually by University of Michigan research scientists for the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has been tracking the drug consumption of
American high school seniors since the 1970s. In the past few years, the study has been
broadened to embrace drug use by 10th grade and 8th grade students as well.
|
| According to the Monitoring the Future Study, 19% of the members of the Class of 1994
had consumed marijuana in the month before they were surveyed. When the first Monitoring
the Future Study was published, 27.1% of the members of the Class of 1975 (eighth and 10th
graders were not surveyed then) reported having used marijuana or hashish in the previous
month. The figure for the Class of 1980 was 33.7% --which puts that 19% figure 14 years
later into perspective. |
CLAIM
III:
A cornerstone of the legalization proponents' position is the claim that making illegal
drugs legal would not cause more of these substances to be consumed, nor would addiction
increase. They claim that many people can use drugs in moderation and that many would
choose not to use drugs, just as many forego alcohol and tobacco now.
Participants in the Anti-Legalization Forum felt strongly that if drugs were more
widely available--as they certainly would be if they were legalized--rates of use and
addiction would increase. Legalizing drugs sends a message that drug use (like tobacco and
alcohol) is acceptable, and encourages drug use among people who currently do not use
drugs. When the social taboos about premarital sex were removed, the nation's illegitimate
birthrate soared. And we are paying dearly for it.
Look to our history. For years, the United States legally refined morphine from opium
and hailed it as a miracle drug. Many soldiers on both sides of the Civil War who were
given morphine for their wounds became addicted to it. Are we ready for more morphine
addicts? Crack addicts? Heroin addicts?
Early in the 20th Century, drugs were plentiful, cheap, and legal in the United States.
Some could even be bought from the Sears Catalogue. But Americans realized that these
legalized drugs were harmful to individuals and society, and drug laws were written.
Legalization proponents would have these statutes repealed and make opium as available as
chewing gum.
The experts believe that legalization of drugs would decrease the perception of risk
currently associated with drug use. The group strongly endorsed the notion that the
government should help protect people from substances and activities that are harmful to
them, the community and society at large.
Some facts which help to confirm the observations of the forum participants may be used
in debates:
| Dr. Herbert Kleber, prominent psychiatrist from Yale University, former Demand Reduction
Deputy Director at the Office of National Drug Control Policy and currently with the
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, stated in a 194 article in
the New England Journal of Medicine that clinical data support the premise that drug use
would increase with legalization. |
He said: "There are over 50 million nicotine addicts, 18 million alcoholics or
problem drinkers, and fewer than 2 million cocaine addicts in the United States. Cocaine
is a much more addictive drug than alcohol. If cocaine were legally available, as alcohol
and nicotine are now, the number of cocaine abusers would probably rise to a point
somewhere between the number of users of the other two agents, perhaps 20 to 25
million...the number of compulsive users might be nine times higher...than the current
number. When drugs have been widely available--as... cocaine was at the turn of the
century--both use and addiction have risen."
| England's experience with widely available heroin shows that use and addiction increase.
Great Britain allowed doctors to prescribe heroin to addicts. There was an explosion of
heroin use and by the mid-1980s known addiction rates were increasing by about 30% a year.
According to the Lancet, the respected British medical journal (Lancet, January 9, 1982),
2,657 heroin addicts were registered in 1970 compared with 5,107 in 1980. |
This was a program in which heroin users needed a doctor's authorization to get their
drug. What would happen if anyone wanting to try heroin could simply buy it at the
government store?
| Legalization was given a lengthy try closer to home when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled
in 1975 that the state could not interfere with a person's possession of marijuana in his
home for personal use. Enforcement was permitted only when the quantity possessed exceeded
four ounces--this in a state that, because of the long, sunny days of its brief growing
season, produces extra potent marijuana. |
The court's ruling was interpreted by many Alaskans as a signal to light up, and so
they did, especially the young ones, even though the ruling was limited to persons 19 and
over. According to a 1988 University of Alaska study, the state's 12 to 17-year-olds used
marijuana at more than twice the national average for their age group.
"The frequency with which marijuana was used within the current sample," the
report on the study said, "suggests that it is not an experimental event for many
students, but that it seems to have become well incorporated into the lifestyle of many
adolescents."
Although they historically cling to their personal liberties, Alaska residents voted in
1990 to recriminalize possession of marijuana, demonstrating their belief that increased
use was too high a price to pay for increased personal liberties.
| Will the public support an aggressive marketing approach? While "government
drugs" could conceivably be priced low enough to eliminate competition, perhaps by
having taxpayers subsidize them to discourage a black market, the combination of low price
and ready availability would bring more consumption, more addiction. We would have won the
battle and lost the war. If they see this as the probable outcome, the American people can
hardly be expected to endorse a "sell at all costs" policy.
|
| Robert L. DuPont, M.D., former director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse,
considered the impact legalization would have on use and addiction rates in a paper
published in 1994. |
"Would legalization increase the number of drug users and the social harm produced
by the use of drugs?" Dr. DuPont asked. "The answer to those two questions is
simply, 'Yes, it would.'"
The current global experience with alcohol and tobacco reveals the downside of
legalization clearly, Dr. DuPont said.
| "Legalization of any drugs leads to large increases in the use of the legalized
drugs," he said. "Because most of the social costs of drugs are not the costs of
prohibition but the costs created by the drug use itself (a point proved beyond dispute by
the dismal global experience with alcohol and tobacco), legalization raises the net social
costs of drug use."
|
| "Legalization is an old, siren call which promises to reduce the high costs of drug
use, but which abundant evidence shows would inevitably raise the costs society pays for
drug use, not reduce them. We do not need new experiments to make this point." |
|
CLAIM IV:
A favorite argument in support of legalization is that education, health care, road
building and a wide array of other worthwhile causes would benefit from the taxes that
could be raised by legalizing drugs and then taxing them.
The conference participants were extremely skeptical about the claim of a large tax
windfall, and challenged advocates to prove that the amounts of revenue potentially
generated by legalization would counterbalance the increased social costs that would
result from making drugs legal. When asked for specifics, the advocates have no answers.
Are they taking into account the erosion of the tax base as more and more citizens are
unable to work because of drug addiction? Add to this loss the cost of health and welfare
benefits for the unemployed.
Health and societal costs of drug legalization would increase. The panel predicted that
drug treatment costs, hospitalization for long-term drug-related disease, and treatment of
the consequences of family violence would further burden our already strapped health care
system.
There is also real reason to believe that liability suits would be brought against
manufacturers and distributors of drugs as damages to individuals increased, thereby
increasing the cost of products.
Ask legalization proponents if the alleged profits from drug legalization would be
enough to pay for the increased fetal defects, loss of workforce productivity, increased
traffic fatalities and industrial accidents, increased domestic violence and the myriad
other problems that would not only be high cost items, but extremely expensive in terms of
social decay. How much are they willing to pay?
Some facts which help to confirm the observations of the forum participants may be used
in debates:
Dr. William Olson, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International
Narcotics Matters, outlined the magnitude of the social costs borne now by U.S. taxpayers
because of drugs. In his 1994 essay, "Drug Legalization: Getting to No," he
provided the following:
| 25-60 percent of the homeless are addicts, whose homelessness is in large part the
result of addiction and their inability to manage money or make rational, reasonable
decisions. They are increasingly supported at public expense.
|
| 75-80 percent of the 1.2 - 1.5 million teenage runaways are substance abusers, and not
because prohibition made them use drugs or run away.
|
| 30-50 percent of mental patients are chemical abusers, 50-60 percent of these crack and
cocaine. They are largely on public support.
|
| As many as 11 percent of young mothers use drugs during pregnancy.
|
| 2.5 percent of all live births, some 100,000 babies, are born addicted to cocaine. They
have lifelong learning disabilities and emotional problems.
|
| $50 billion is devoted annually to dealing with the health care costs of drug addiction
and its collateral costs. These will not disappear with legalization.
|
| There are approximately 500,000 heroin and 2 million other substance abusers. Their care
is increasingly a demand on society.
|
| There is no way to predict how much revenue would be generated by the United States
Government taxing legalized drugs. Such ascenario depends entirely upon the parameters of
legalization, and what the policy means vis a vis sources of drugs. If U.S. farmers were
given subsidies to produce drugs (as they are given subsidies for tobacco) the U.S.
taxpayers would be responsible for paying for these subsidies. If foreign sources of drugs
(opium or coca) were allowed to supply the raw material for these products, an elaborate
system of tariffs and trade preferences would need to be established.
|
| Taxes would likely push the cost of the product up. Taxing the drugs would make them
more expensive at the checkout counter. The drug cartels do not provide a share of their
receipts to their respective governments. They are all business. Anyone going into
competition with them, including the U.S. Government, would have to be all business too,
prepared to cut prices, if necessary, to stay in the game.
|
| Legalized gambling has not put illegal gambling out of business. In fact, legalized
gambling has produced a whole new group of people who cannot control their need to gamble.
Many states have gone into the gambling business to raise funds for public purposes, with
some success, although as more jurisdictions get into it the profits decline. Meanwhile,
bookies ply their trade as they always have. The reason is the payoff they offer is better
than the legal gambling schemes. For every million dollars wagered, that is, they return a
higher percentage to the winners. Again, it's a matter of overhead. The bookies are not
trying to build schools, so they don't have to earmark a percentage of the profits for
such endeavors. So long as that is so, they will always have a market that is loyal to
them. The same situation could logically occur if drugs were legal. |
CLAIM V:
It is often suggested that, even if currently controlled substances are not made
available to the general public, some of them, particularly marijuana and heroin, could be
used to relieve suffering.
Participants in the Anti-Legalization Forum acknowledged that arguments urging the
medical use of marijuana are often used as an entree into the legalization debate. Medical
use arguments can garner public support because they seem harmless enough to the
uninformed audience. The experts agreed that these issues are peripheral to the real
issue.
The medical pros and cons of prescribing marijuana and heroin to sick people are best
debated by medical professionals. It should be kept in mind, however, that marijuana has
been rejected as medicine by the American Medical Association, the American Glaucoma
Society, the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the International Federation of Multiple
Sclerosis Societies, and the American Cancer Society.
Not one American health association accepts marijuana as medicine. Statements issued by
these organizations express concern over the harmful effects of the drugs and over the
lack of solid research demonstrating that they might do more good than harm.
The International Federation of Multiple Sclerosis Societies, for instance, said in a
statement issued by its Therapeutic Claims Committee in 1992: "Further studies are
required to determine whether marijuana has a clinically useful effect on multiple
sclerosis. In view of the possible toxic effects of long-term use, its use cannot be
recommended. In the opinion of the committee, there appears to be no generally accepted
scientific basis for use of this therapy. It has never been tested in a properly
controlled trial. Long-term use may be associated with significant serious side
effects."
Marijuana also affects:
| The immune system by impairing the ability of T-cells to fight off infections;
|
| The reproductive system by delaying the onset of puberty in young men and women; and
|
| Babies who are born to women who used marijuana during pregnancy; these babies are
smaller and more likely to develop other health problems.
|
In July 1995, the Department of Health and Human Service held its first research
conference on marijuana. At the conference, new information about the long-term dangers of
marijuana use was released. Some of the major findings included the following:
| Peter Fried, Ph.D., from the Carleton University in Ottawa, found that marijuana use
during pregnancy has harmful effects on children's intellectual abilities a decade or more
after they are born.
|
| Through the use of an animal model, Billy Martin, Ph.D. of the Virginia Commonwealth
University, showed that compulsive marijuana use may lead to an addiction similar to that
produced by other illicit drugs.
|
| Roger Roffman, Ph.D. and Robert Stephens, Ph.D., both from the University of Washington,
showed that marijuana can put a serious chokehold on long-term users who try to quit.
|
The American Medical Association policy statement on marijuana says, in part, "The
AMA believes that cannabis (marijuana) is a dangerous drug and as such is a public health
concern." This is not a new position for the AMA; it was adopted in 1969 and
reaffirmed in 1994.
Some facts which help to confirm the observations of the forum participants may be used
in debates:
| Under the federal statute known as the Controlled Substances Act (see opposite page),
regulated drugs are divided into categories known as schedules. In Schedule I, for
instance, are drugs with a high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use
in treatment in the United States. At the other end of the spectrum is Schedule V, which
is for drugs that have a low potential for abuse and have a currently accepted medical use
in treatment in the United States. The Act provides a mechanism for substances to be
controlled (added to a schedule), decontrolled (removed from control), or rescheduled
(transferred from one schedule to another). |
Heroin and marijuana are in Schedule I; cocaine, which is sometimes used as a local
anesthetic, is in Schedule II. Much of the debate about medical uses for currently illegal
drugs concerns substituting heroin for morphine and supplying marijuana to AIDS and
glaucoma patients or using it to treat side effects of chemotherapy.
| A petition to put marijuana in a less restrictive schedule of the CSA was rejected by
then DEA Administrator John C. Lawn, after public hearings, on December 29, 1989. The
United States Court of Appeals ordered further proceedings, however, to clear up what it
felt were some ambiguities in the record. Administrator Robert C. Bonner, who succeeded
Lawn, complied and issued a new ruling on March 26, 1992. "By any modern scientific
standard, marijuana is no medicine," Bonner said. The three-judge appeals court
upheld the ruling unanimously on February 18, 1994. "Our review of the record
convinces us that the Administrator's findings are supported by substantial
evidence," the court said, noting the "testimony of numerous experts that
marijuana's medicinal value has never been proven in sound scientific studies." |
DRUGS are scheduled under Federal law according to their effects,
medical use, and potential for abuse.
CLAIM VI:
The experiences of a number of foreign countries including Great Britain, the
Netherlands and Switzerland are often cited to demonstrate that other nations have
successfully controlled drug use by providing areas where drug takers can obtain and use
drugs. Recently, an MTV documentary on the drug issue highlighted coffeehouses in
Amsterdam as a model for a controlled, successful environment in which young Europeans can
enjoy marijuana.
Legalization proponents cannot find encouragement in the fact that when drugs were once
legal, cheap and available in the United States, the impact on society was such that laws
were enacted to make drugs illegal. They ignore our own history and point to Great
Britain, the Netherlands and Switzerland as free and open societies where drug use is
allowed with no adverse effects. The Quantico experts believed it is important to shed
light on the foreign experience with increased drug access and liberalized use policies,
and explain that this experience has been negative.
England tried prescribing heroin but gave it up. Until the mid-1960s, British
physicians were allowed to prescribe heroin to certain classes of addicts. After this
experiment, according to James Q. Wilson in his 1990 article "Against the
Legalization of Drugs," "a youthful drug culture emerged with a demand for drugs
far different from that of the older addicts."
The British system didn't work. Addiction levels rose, especially among teenagers, and
many addicts chose to boycott the program and continued to get their heroin from pushers.
In 1983, England began switching over to methadone and stopped dispensing heroin from
the clinics, and that caused even more addicts to depart in favor of the real thing.
According to the late John Kaplan of Stanford University, the number of addicts increased
fivefold. James Q. Wilson states that the British Government's experiment with controlled
heroin distribution resulted in, at a minimum, a 30-fold increase in the number of addicts
in ten years.
The Netherlands, despite its controlled program, is having troubles. Under the
so-called "expediency principle," Dutch prosecutors have wide discretion in
prosecuting--or ignoring--persons in possession of small quantities of drugs for personal
use. In practice, marijuana and hashish, for instance, are openly sold and consumed in
coffee houses.
The Amsterdam Municipal Health Service showed a rise in hard-core addicts in 1992,
attributable to a significant rise in the local heroin supply which led to a price drop of
as much as 75%.
Switzerland has become a magnet for drug users the world over. One thing small European
nations have learned is a little tolerance about drugs brings a lot of unwelcome visitors.
In 1987, Zurich permitted drug use and sales in a part of the city called the Platzspitz,
dubbed "Needle Park." Five years later the experiment was curtailed after an
influx of addicts and increased violence and deaths. In 1992, Zurich Municipal spokesman
Andres Ohler told the New York Times that the number of regular drug users at the park had
swelled from a few hundred in 1987 to 20,000 by 1992. After the Platzspitz closed, the
price of heroin reportedly doubled.
RESOLUTION EUROPEAN CITIES AGAINST DRUGS
A number of European cities have taken the initiative of organizing a Conference for
Cities Against the Legalization of Drugs. One of the aims of the conference is to adopt a
resolution to enable towns that have not participated in the conference to support its
work.
The purpose of the conference is to increase cooperation between cities, to provide
inspiration and hope for areas with particularly difficult drug problems. The signatories
to the resolution will affirm their decision to fight against the spread of drugs.
STOCKHOLM * 28TH APRIL1994
Zurich authorities moved many addicts to a new site, a nearby abandoned railway
station, a few blocks north of Needle Park. Here, addicts receive clean needles and are
allowed to inject heroin and consume other drugs. Writing in Drug Abuse Update in 1994,
Sue Rusche, executive director of National Families in Action, gave this description of
what passersby can see if they look down from the Kornhaus Bridge:
"Most people think shots are bloodless events. A nurse inserts a needle, injects a
medicine and you're on your way. But here, bright red blood streams down arms, necks,
legs, feet and groins as addicts inject themselves. Festering red and purple sores filled
with pus, old blood and filthy scabs stretch from wrist to elbow, ankle to knee."
In February 1995, authorities decided they'd had enough and closed the railway station
as an addicts' hangout.
Some facts which help to confirm the observations of the forum participants may be used
in debates:
| In April, 1994, a number of European cities signed a resolution titled "European
Cities Against Drugs," commonly known as the Stockholm resolution (see page 23). It
states: "The demands to legalize illicit drugs should be seen against the background
of current problems, which have led to a feeling of helplessness. For many, the only way
to cope is to try to administer the current situation. But the answer does not lie in
making harmful drugs more accessible, cheaper and socially acceptable. Attempts to do this
have not proved successful. We believe that legalizing drugs will, in the long term,
increase our problems. By making them legal, society will signal that it has resigned to
the acceptance of drug abuse. The signatories to this resolution therefore want to make
their position clear by rejecting the proposals to legalize illicit drugs." |
Pointing to the appropriate international treaties which require nations to
"protect children from the illicit use of narcotic drugs," the signatories state
that they "reject all demands for legalizing illicit drugs... We request that our
Governments respect and with determination apply those conventions and agreements
regarding drugs which they have signed."
The cities signing this resolution include: Berlin, Stockholm, Budapest, Dublin, Gdansk
(Poland), Gothenburg (Sweden), Helsinki, Paris, Lugano (Switzerland), Madrid, Malmo
(Sweden), Moscow, Oslo, Prague, London, Reykjavik (Iceland), Riga (Latvia), St. Petersburg
(Russia), Tallinn (Estonia), Valletta (Malta) and Warsaw.
| A study by the Rotterdam Municipal Council shows that the number of young cocaine users
there has risen substantially. About 3.3% of all Rotterdam residents 15 to 19 years of age
use cocaine, according to the study. |
Violent crime is also a major problem in the Netherlands. A 1992 study of crime victims
in twenty mostly European countries ranks the Netherlands as the number one country in
Europe for assaults and threats.
The Dutch Criminal Intelligence Service reported 104 gun-related deaths in the
Netherlands in 1992, compared to 73 in 1991. Almost all involved drug disputes. Robberies
also increased in each of the four years since 1988.
The Netherlands, smaller than West Virginia, has more than 50 clinics supplying
methadone to heroin addicts, and drug violators make up a large percentage of prisoners in
the Dutch prison system.
CLAIM VII:
Alcohol Has Caused
Significant Health, Social and Crime Problems in this Country, and Legalized Drugs
Would Only Make the Situation Worse.
Many legalization advocates are fond of comparing the use of alcohol with the use of
drugs, yet draw faulty conclusions from the comparison. People often consume small amounts
of wine or beer as a beverage and do not necessarily drink to the point of mental
impairment. This is not true of drug use, where the whole point of use is intoxication. A
more accurate analogy would be to compare drug use to drunkenness. Yet even that analogy
is weak, because drugs are far more addictive than alcohol, and have no cultural or social
value. Dr. Mitchell Rosenthal points out, for example, that only 10 percent of drinkers
become alcoholics, while up to 75 percent of regular illicit drug users become addicted.
Proponents of legalization note--correctly--that alcohol kills many more Americans than
do illegal drugs and currently exact social and financial costs that are higher as well.
Advocates point out that many people do not use alcohol, and argue that many Americans may
also choose to forego drugs. Like treatment programs available for alcohol addicted
people, treatment for drug addicts should be more widely available, they say.
The experts assembled at the Anti-Legalization Forum pointed to already overburdened
health care and social systems that are unable to address all the problems associated with
alcohol use. Legalized drugs would compound these problems, the group said, adding
immeasurably to the burdens on the criminal, health and social service systems.
Alcohol use in this country has taken a tremendous physical toll on Americans, not to
mention the social problems that have resulted from its use. Legalization proponents would
have us multiply our problems by creating a new class of drug-addicted Americans. Again,
how much are we willing to tolerate? To pay for?
Look at the problems that alcohol abuse has wrought. In the 1920s those advocating the
repeal of Prohibition argued that crime and other social ills would be alleviated if
alcohol were legal. Has that happened? We now have approximately 11 million alcoholics or
problem drinkers in this country whose behavior has contributed to lost productivity in
the workplace, fetal defects, traffic fatalities, domestic violence and other crime. If
drugs were made legal, the numbers and the problems would swell.
The simple fact is that if drugs are made legal, more people will use drugs. There will
be higher health and social costs; there will be more crime.
Some facts which help to confirm the observations of the forum participants may be used
in debates:
| In a May, 1993 report titled "Survey of State Prison Inmates," the Bureau of
Justice Statistics states that 32% of inmates committed their offense under the influence
of alcohol. Slightly more than two-fifths of inmates convicted of homicide or assault
committed their current offense under the influence of alcohol or of alcohol with drugs.
|
| According to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, about 11 million Americans
were heavy drinkers in 1993 (drinking five or more drinks per occasion on five or more
days in the past 30 days). Heavy alcohol use has changed little since 1985, when there
were 12 million heavy drinkers. |
The same report indicates that "of the 11 million heavy drinkers in 1993, 26
percent (3 million) were also current illicit drug users." The report goes on to say
that "Current smokers are more likely to be heavy drinkers and illicit drug users.
Among smokers in 1993, 11 percent were heavy drinkers and 12 percent were illicit drug
users."
| In a 1993 report by Brandeis University, it was estimated that the United States spent
$10.5 billion on health care related to alcohol use.
|
| Alcohol is blamed for between $140 and $210 billion per year in lost productivity.
|
| 17,461 people were killed in alcohol-related traffic incidents in 1993.
|
| Michigan's Director of the Office of Drug Control Policy, Robert Peterson, states that
"It is estimated that alcohol abuse costs the nation $100 billion per year and over
300 lives per day, an amount that the $18 billion in state and federal excise tax revenue
does not begin to cover."
CLAIM VIII:
Legalization advocates claim that this nation has spent billions of dollars to control
drug production, trafficking and use with few, if any, positive results. They contend that
the money spent on drug control should be shifted to other, more productive endeavors.
The truth is, we have made great progress in reducing drug use during the past 15
years. If the relatively modest outlays of Federal dollars had not been made, drug abuse
and attendant social costs would have been far greater. The good news is that drug use has
declined significantly between 1979 and 1993.
The experts participating in the Anti-Legalization Forum disputed the claim that money
allegedly saved from giving up on the drug problem could be better spent on education and
social problems. When compared to the amount of funding that is spent on other national
priorities, drug control spending is minimal. There has been progress in reducing drug
use, and the money spent has been effective and worthwhile.
On the surface, legalization proponents present an appealing, simple argument that by
legalizing drugs we can move vast sums of money from drug law enforcement into solving
society's ills. They leave unanswered questions about the cost of collecting revenues
associated with drug sales, or the cost of regulating drugs. They ignore questions
concerning the purity, potency and quality of legal drugs, the costs of insuring a safe
product, and costs associated with increased liability litigation.
Ask proponents of legalization for specifics. Would the raw material for these drugs be
purchased from traditional sources, or would the United States produce its own marijuana,
coca and opium? Would the government pay farmers subsidies to produce or not produce these
crops? Although all of these questions could be resolved, none comes without a price tag.
Proponents also conveniently fail to mention that unless drugs are made available to
little children, law enforcement will still be needed to deal with the sale of drugs to
minors. But more importantly, in their simplistic arguments, they omit mention of the
atrocious social costs that would be incurred with a larger class of drug users.
Legalization would also result in lost workforce productivity and a resultant increase in
the cost of goods. A new class of unemployables would be created who were unfit to hire
because of their drug dependence.
Health and societal costs of drug legalization would also increase, the panel
predicted. Drug treatment costs, hospitalization for long-term drug-related disease, and
treatment of family violence consequences would further burden our already strapped
health-care system.
There was also no guarantee, according to the group, that criminal justice costs would
decline if drugs were legalized. It is possible that law enforcement would be additionally
burdened with addressing violations of traffic and family violence laws if more people had
access to drugs. Law enforcement is already challenged by significant alcohol-related
crimes. More users mean more crimes committed, and incarceration costs would increase.
Some facts which help to confirm the observations of the forum participants may be used
in debates:
 | In 1995, over $13 billion is being spent by the federal government on drug control,
including treatment, education, law enforcement and international activities.
|
| Drug abuse costs the United States between $60 and $100 billion in lost productivity
each year.
|
| The federal government spends billions of dollars each year on other national
priorities. In Fiscal Year 1995, the federal government had earmarked monies as follows:
CLAIM IX:
Legalization advocates claim that drug prohibition is akin to alcohol prohibition
earlier this century. Their main premise is that it is impossible to prohibit people from
using substances that they want to use.
Participants in the Anti-Legalization Forum felt that legalization opponents should
point to the successes of Prohibition and to stress continuously the positive progress
that has been made between 1979 and 1994 in reducing levels of drug abuse.
When the Volstead Act was repealed, arrests for alcohol traffickers disappeared, but
arrests in alcohol-related incidents rose, indicating that the prohibition against alcohol
had kept people from using it. The same will happen if drugs are legalized. Once drug use
is sanctioned by the Government, more people will use drugs.
It is also important to remember that after Prohibition was repealed, organized crime
branched out into other areas, and there is every expectation that current drug
organizations would also continue and diversify.
Some facts which help to confirm the observations of the forum participants may be used
in debates:
 | Dr. Mark Moore, in a 1992 article titled "Actually, Prohibition Was a
Success," points out that alcohol consumption declined during the Prohibition years
by as much as 30-50%. Mental hospital admissions from alcohol-induced psychosis declined
50%.
|
| Robert Peterson, Director of the Michigan Office of Drug Control Policy, states that
"Since the repeal of Prohibition, alcohol consumption has tripled."
|
| Alcohol, unlike currently illegal drugs, has a long history of social acceptance and has
an important role in many cultures. Alcohol can also be self-administered in small doses
with little damaging effect. |
We are making progress in reducing the number of illicit drug users.
CLAIM X:
Some proponents of legalization claim that current strict drug control policies have a
disproportionately adverse effect on poor communities.
The drug laws of the United States, and efforts to stop drug trafficking and abuse, are
designed to protect all people from the harm and degradation that illegal drugs cause. If
one economic group or another is disproportionately affected by the implementation of
current laws, that problem should be dealt with in its proper context--not by legalizing
drugs.
The participants at the forum, several of them city police chiefs, disagreed with the
notion that legalization would improve the lot of the poor. Legalization proponents argue
that fewer people would be arrested for drug trafficking crime and the violence associated
with turf protection would be reduced if drugs were legalized. That argument assumes that
drug-related violence is limited to rival drug gangs disputing turf, when in fact, most
drug violence is committed by people under the influence of drugs.
The incidence of dysfunctional families, unemployablity, family violence, and ruined
lives would increase in low-income communities, just as it would in every other community.
All communities would see increased aberrant behavior because of increased drug use;
increased occurrences of child neglect; increased family disintegration; increased fetal
damage caused by mothers' drug use; increased social welfare costs; loss of workforce
productivity; increased auto accidents because drivers are driving under the influence of
drugs; increased industrial accidents caused by impaired workers; increased absenteeism;
and increases in emergency room visits and overdose deaths. In short, all Americans would
see a moral decline of society.
Drug use in the inner city is a manifestation of other problems in the inner city;
these problems would not go away if more drugs were available. If proponents truly believe
that legalization would have a positive effect on communities, we challenge them to set up
a trial program in their own community.
Some facts which help to confirm the observations of the forum participants may be used
in debates:
| In his 1994 article in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Herbert Kleber addresses
the drug situation: "Our current drug situation follows a pattern of earlier drug
epidemics. As the use of drugs drops from epidemic to endemic levels, disadvantaged groups
are more likely than others to continue using drugs because of their greater availability
and fewer alternative opportunities. That is why minority communities want not only
treatment facilities but also fair laws, justly applied to reduce the horrendous toll of
drug-related crime in their neighborhoods. The illegal, open air drug bazaars that
flourish in southeastern Washington DC and the South Bronx would not be tolerated in
Georgetown or Scarsdale." |
 Hits since October 19th Revision |
|
|
|
