Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 20:03:41 -0600
Message-Id: <9412150203.AA15967@dsm6.dsmnet.com>
To: drctalk-l@netcom.com
From: "Carl E. Olsen" 
Subject: Against legalization

To: carlolsen@dsmnet.com
From: carlolsen@dsmnet.com (Carl E. Olsen)
Subject: Re: The drug war
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 20:54:05

--- Forwarded message follows ---
Subject: Re: The drug war
From: lance.reichert@servcent.org
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 94 23:32:00 CDT

Having advocated legalization in this forum, I thought I'd offer the
following:  In composition class last semester, my wife was assigned to
write a critique of an article written by Gore Vidal advocating legalization
of drugs.  I thought she did a good job (just my unbiased opinion) and she
says I can share it with you.  While I don't agree with all she says, she's
done good research and made a good case.  I'm not convinced, but I
thought you should hear what she has to say.

Lance ==)--------

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     In his essay "Drugs", Gore Vidal, an essayist, suggests some general-
ly unrecognized causes for the nation's problems with drug addiction, and 
proposes a radical solution.  He makes a good case for the causes he 
identifies, but his proposed solution has as many problems as it cures.
     Vidal begins by proposing we "make all drugs available and sell them 
at cost.  Label each drug with a precise description of side effects."  He 
believes most drugs are not instantly addictive because he has sampled 
many of them.
     He concedes that legalization would probably lead to a lot of "sam-
pling," but states it is unlikely that any reasonably sane person will 
become a drug addict if he knows in advance what addiction is going to be 
like.
     Vidal believes that each man has the right to do what he wants with 
his own life as long as he does not interfere with his neighbor's pursuit 
of happiness.
     His main point is that every man has the power (and should have the 
legal right) to kill himself if he chooses.  He feels forbidding people 
things they like or think they might enjoy only makes them want those 
things all the more.
     Vidal compares current drug interdiction efforts to prohibition.  In 
1920, the eighteenth amendment banned the manufacture, import, and sale of 
alcohol.  It resulted in an increase in crime famous to this day and 
caused thousands of deaths.  He also considered the 'successful' interdic-
tion of Mexican marijuana, leading kids to get hooked on heroin, with a 
resulting increase in deaths.
     His last argument is that neither the Bureau of Narcotics nor the 
Mafia want to change the status quo.  Strong laws against the sale and use 
of drugs keeps both sides employed.  If either side were to triumph, drugs 
would be sold at cost or not at all and there would be no money in it for 
anyone:  no playground pushers, no addicts committing crimes to pay for 
their next fix and no need for narcotics agents.
     Vidal's claim that most recreational drugs are not addictive on the 
first use may be true.  Certainly, his own experience proves that they are 
not always addictive.  However, a single test subject is a poor base from 
which to generalize and a study in which the experimenter is the subject 
is highly suspect.
     Vidal's claim that sane, informed people will not indulge to the 
point of addiction is patently false.  While many people are able to use 
addictive drugs in moderation, it is not correct that only the insane or 
ignorant become addicts.  There are people who smoke a 'joint' once in a 
while, some who can restrict their use of heroin to weekends, or of co-
caine to an occasional party.  
     On the other hand the most widely abused drugs in our society are 
tobacco, alcohol and prescription drugs -- the legal drugs and those which 
are most readily available.  Many so-called 'informed' people, including 
doctors, still smoke cigarettes, even though every package and advertise-
ment proclaims the health risks.  "A recent report issued by the Federal 
Government states that approximately 57 million people in this country are 
addicted to cigarettes, 18 million are addicted to alcohol and 10 million 
are abusing psychotherapeutic drugs.  By comparison, crack, heroin and 
hallucinogens each accounts for one million addicts.  Further, the report 
states that every day in this country 1,000 people die of smoking-related 
illnesses, 550 die of alcohol-related accidents and disease, while 20 die 
of drug overdoses and drug-related homicides.  In addition, the annual 
costs of health care and lost productivity to employers are estimated at 
$600 billion for alcoholism and $60 billion for tobacco-related ailments.  
For all illegal drugs, however, the comparable cost is an estimated $40 
billion" (Lynch 8).  These data clearly demonstrate that the drugs which 
are most available are the most abused, the most dangerous and the most 
costly.  It is unlikely that unleashing a whole new class of more lethal, 
more addictive substances will hold much promise.    
     Furthermore, "Statistics tell us that of all users of alcohol, 10 
percent become addicts.  For cocaine it is 70 percent" (Colson 64).  Even 
limited experiments in drug legalization have shown that when drugs are 
more widely available, addiction skyrockets.  "In 1975 Italy liberalized 
its drug law and now has one of the highest heroin-related death rates in 
Western Europe.  In Alaska, where marijuana was decriminalized in 1975, 
the easy atmosphere has increase usage of the drug, particularly among 
children.  Nor does it stop there.  Some Alaskan school children now tout 
'coca puffs,' marijuana cigarettes laced with cocaine" (Bennett 91).
     I agree with Vidal's claim that every man has the right to do what he 
wants as long as it doesn't interfere with his neighbor, and that every 
man has the right to kill himself.  Drug use appears, at first, to be such 
a choice.  Choices and preferences are the birthright of a free person, of 
an educated citizen.  Drug use could therefore be an expression of indi-
vidual liberty.  But as drug-dependent people and their families know, 
drug addiction ultimately destroys the capacity to choose; freedom of 
choice, along with health and performance, may be lost altogether.  
     The burdens of drug use don't just fall on the user and his family, 
but on complete strangers and society as a whole.  "An example of how 
serious this problem has become is the fact that public transportation 
accidents have increased greatly, in many of which the engineer and brake-
man were found to have traces of marijuana in their systems" (Rangel 31).  
     Society pays the costs of drug abuse through lost productivity, 
medical care subsidies, welfare assistance to users' families and the 
expense of special education for crack babies.  

     "As the number of people using drugs increases, babies born to ad-
dicted mothers will increase as well.  According to a report issued by the 
New York City Public School in 1991, during the preceding 10 years babies 
born to substance-abusing mothers increased 3,000 percent.  It is estimat-
ed that each year approximately 10,000 babies are born exposed to drugs" 
(Lynch 8).  Among the characteristics of a child prenatally exposed to 
drugs:  neurological problems, affective disorders, poor concentration, 
delayed language development, impaired social skills, difficulty in play 
(Lynch 8).  No one who has seen a crack baby, addicted to drugs in its 
mother's womb, could accept the idea that drug abuse is a victimless 
crime.  When a behavior hurts one's family, friends, strangers, and all of 
society, it oversteps the constitution's protection of personal liberty by 
infringing that of others.
     Vidal's point related to prohibition is sketchily argued.  Prohibi-
tion was not the result of Victorian-era prudes trying to force their 
devoutness on an unwilling society.  Rather, it was the response to an 
enormous public-safety and health crisis.  In the new industrial era, 
thousands of drunken workers were being killed or maimed each year. 
"During 1916-1919 per capita consumption of pure alcohol among the U.S. 
drinking-age population was 1.96 gallons a year; during Prohibition it 
dropped to 0.90 gallons; after Repeal, during 1936-1941, it went up about 
70 percent, to 1.54 gallons" (Dennis 130).
     Vidal claims "there would be no friendly playground pushers, and 
addicts would not commit crimes to pay for the next fix."  The implica-
tions is that if addicts can buy crack at the local 7-Eleven, they won't 
have to rob old ladies to pay for drugs.  While the crimes associated with 
heroin are usually committed while the patient is in withdrawal -- that 
is, while desperately trying to get another fix -- cocaine-related crimes 
are committed while the user is in the drugged state (Gold 43).
     "Cocaine in crack form makes users notoriously irritable and prone to 
violence...  A January 1990 survey of crack users by 800-COCAINE found 
that nearly 25 per cent admitted to committing a violent crime while under 
the influence of crack" (Gold 43).  For some drug users, crime is their 
livelihood.  Legalizing drugs won't turn these users into model citizens.  
     Probably the worst feature of Vidal's proposal is the rise in organ-
ized crime and the homicide rate. The Dutch experiment in legalizing drugs 
is often held up as model approach to the problem, however, "in 1983, 
after the legalization of heroin had been in effect for some time, Amster-
dam had the dubious distinction of reporting more murders per capita, many 
drug-related, than any other city in the world" (Rangel 32).
     Experiments with the decriminalization of drugs have failed.  A case 
in point is Zurich, Switzerland.  "There the city set aside a park, the 
Platzpitz, in which drugs were decriminalized and were available with no 
legal consequences.  Health care was made accessible and clean syringes 
were supplied.  It was hoped that there would be a reduction in crime, 
better health care for addicts and containment of the problem to a defined 
area of the city.  The experiment failed dramatically.
     "As reported in The New York Times on Feb. 11, 1992, and London's 
Financial Times on Jan 4, 1992, Zurich's drug-related crime and violence 
actually increased.  Drug users and dealers converged on the Swiss city 
from other countries throughout Europe.  The health-care system was over-
whelmed as drug users had to be resuscitated.  As drug dealers began to 
compete for business, the cost of drugs decreased.  One addict was quoted 
as saying, 'Too many kids were getting hooked too easily.'...Zurich has 
served as a real-life experiment that proves the failure of decriminaliza-
tion" (Lynch 9).
     Drug policy should strike the right balance between reducing the harm 
done by psychoactive drugs and reducing the harm that results from strict 
prohibitions and their enforcement.  If we find this balance in drug 
policies, it should be possible to bring about a reduction in the demand 
for psychoactive drugs.  A reduced _demand_ for drugs offers the only real 
hope of eventually achieving, not a drug-free society, but one with sub-
stantially less drug abuse.


                         _Works Cited_

Bennett, William.  "Should Drugs Be Legalized?"  _Reader's Digest_ (March
     1990): 90-94.
Colson, Charles.  "Half-Stoned Logic."  _Christianity Today_ (March 1990):
     64.
Dennis, Richard J.  "The Economics of Legalizing Drugs."  _The Atlantic
     Monthly_ (November 1990): 126-132.
Gold, Mark S.  "Legalize Drugs: Just Say Never."  _National Review_ (April
      1, 1990): 42-43.
Lynch, Gerald W. & Blotner, Roberta.  "Legalizing Drugs Is Not the Solu
     tion."  _America_ (February 13, 1993): 7-9.
Rangel, Charles B.  "USA 1991: One Year After Legalization."  _USA Today_
     (July 1990): 30-32.



Sincerely,     |  carlolsen@dsmnet.com      |  Post Office Box 4091
Carl E. Olsen  |  iowanorml@commonlink.com  |  Des Moines, Iowa 50333
Iowa NORML     |  73043.414@compuserve.com  |  (515) 243-7351