HaCKeRz KrOnIcKLeZ 3/HaCKeRz_KrOnIcKLeZ.iso/drugs/bring.drugs.within.the.law

Text File | 1996-05-06 | 8KB | 136 lines

Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1993 09:08:58 +0100
To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Svein O.G. Nyberg)
Subject: Cover article on legalization from The Economist

THE ECONOMIST,  MAY 15TH 1993
Cover Article:   Bring Drugs within the Law




In 1883, Benjamin Ward Richardson, a  distinguished British doctor, denounced
the evils of drinking tea. He said it caused an "extremely nervous
semi-hysterical condition". In 1936, an article in the American Journal of
Nursing claimed that a marijuana taker "will suddenly turn with murderous
violence upon whomever is nearest to him". Tea and marijuana have three
things in common: they alter the moods of those who take them, they are
regarded as tolerably safe, and they are addictive.

Attitudes to addiction are complicated and often contradictory. Tea and
marijuana are in themselves fairly harmless, yet tea is generally legal and
marijuana not. Tobacco and cocaine are harmful but, again, tobacco is almost
universally allowed, whereas most readers of The Economist live in countries
which may imprison you for possessing cocaine. Throw in the joker of
addictions which come not in syringes or cigarettes, but in casinos and
computer cartridges, and you have a fine arena for combat between
libertarians and puritans.

This battle, always lively, has just become hotter. On April 28th Bill
Clinton appointed Lee Brown, a former policeman, as America's new "drug
tsar", and thus leader of the world's toughest prohibition programme (see
page 31). Ten days be- lore, Italians had voted to move in the other
direction by scrapping the harshest measures of their drug laws.

Such boldness is rare. The attitude of most electorates and governments is to
deplore the problems that the illegal drug trade brings, view the whole
matter with distaste, and sit on the status quo--a policy of sweeping
prohibition. Yet the problems cannot be ignored. The crime to which some
addicts resort to finance their habits, and in which the suppliers of illegal
drugs habitually engage, exacts its price in victims' lives, not just money.
The illegal trade in drugs supports organised crime the world over. It pulls
drug-takers into a world of filthy needles, poisoned doses and pushers bent
upon selling them more addictive and dangerous fixes.

Yet most people still balk at exploring ways in which a legal regime might
undermine such effects. Their refusal owes something to a distaste for
addiction in itself. This is an argument shot through with inconsistency. The
strongest disapproval often comes from those who scream about liberties if
their own particular indulgences--for assault rifles, say--are attacked.
Addiction to cigarettes is reckoned to be the chief avoidable cause of death
in the world. Alcohol deprives boozers of their livers and their memories,
and ends the lives of all too many innocents who get smashed on the roads by
the inebriated. Yet here the idea of dissuasion within the law is broadly
accepted.
A much sounder basis for doubt is the worry that legalisation would increase
drug-taking, and that rising consumption and addiction would overwhelm the
gains to be had from getting drugs within the law. Yet legalisation should
not be taken to mean a lawless free-for-all, with no restraint on the supply
or use of drugs. Done properly, it would allow governments to take control of
the distribution and quality of these substances away from criminals. Quality
control is decisive, because much of the damage done by drugs bought on
street corners is caused by adulterated products; in much the same way,
carelessly distilled hooch can cause blindness.

Supply would be regulated by a system of government Licences analogous to
those already in force for tobacco and alcohol (and which would serve, among
other things, to keep drugs out of the hands of children), backed by strict
policing and heavy penalties. The toughness of the regime would rise with the
addictiveness of the drug in question--a light touch for marijuana, an
extremely dissuasive one for heroin.

Such legalisation would not magically dispense with the need for policemen,
but it would make the needed policing more manageable. Particularly in the
business of softer drugs, where the taxes can be lower and the restrictions
less onerous, and where the first trial steps towards legalisation should
take place,  it would undermine the "risk premium" that provides drug cartels
with their profits. Taxes raised on what is reckoned to be the world's
largest untaxed industry would help governments spend money on treatment and
education, which would do more good than the billions currently spent on
attempting to throttle the criminal supply of drugs of all sorts.


  **The quest for Soma

There is another consideration, one for the future. The illegality of drugs,
coupled with distaste for pleasurable addiction, is skewing research.
Progress is being made by scientists in understanding both what causes the
pleasure of drugs and what makes the pleasure so hard to give up (see page
105). Currently such research is obliged to have only one aim--unhooking
existing addicts. It might have another. In many areas of pharmacology,
researchers are exploring the idea of "designer drugs",  chemicals tailored
to fit harmlessly into human biochemistry. Addiction research should be
encouraged to do the same: to move beyond devising better therapies for those
who wish to kick the drug habit, into the invention of safer, more effective
and less habit-forming highs. At the moment it cannot, for a safe drug equals
a "substance abuse" equals a crime.


The fact remains that any legal regime which lowers the economic incentive
for drugs-crime will surely boost drug consumption. The question is by how
much. One possible pointer is that, when asked, people say it will not rise a
lot. In opinion polls, Americans generally insist that they would not be
persuaded by legalisation to try drugs they are not taking now. There is some
reason to believe them, despite the first instinct to be sceptical, since
they already have access to plenty of mindbending substances, from alcohol
and tobacco to diet pills.

Then there is reassurance from experiments. The American states that
decriminalised marijuana during the 197Os saw no divergence in the
consumption of the drug from that in neighbouring states which continued to
prohibit it. Extensive experience with decriminalisation in Holland shows
that not only is there no accompanying surge in consumption--allowing for the
inrush of addicts from more restrictive countries--but related crime falls
when drugs are legalised.

One further argument is used by defenders of the status quo. They say that,
even if the case for exploring legalisation were conceded by governments,
public resistance would doom the idea. This is hardly surprising, given the
way governments the world over have for decades hammered home the dogma of
prohibition. A more rational discussion could do much to change public
opinion. Only a few years before alcohol prohibition was repealed in the
United States in 1933, public sentiment was similarly dominated by the
opinions of the country's prohibitionist leaders.

There are signs that public instincts are changing. In recent months a
growing number of federal judges and lawyers have voiced their exasperation
with America's approach to drugs. Their objections led Politicians in
Washington to hold a meeting earlier this month to rethink the country's
tailed drugs policies. Janet Reno, the attorney general, started the day by
describing her doubts about America's current approach. It ended,
significantly, with a discussion of the merits of legalisation. Neither Mr
Brown nor Ms Reno, and certainly not their boss Mr Clinton, has so far
supported legalisation. But they have done what no American administration
has dared do in living memory--set the scene for a proper debate.