Facts about Drugs

Supposing drugs were de-criminalized and distributed in unglamorous, bureaucratic settings, what would we do about those who prefer to go on using and distributing drugs in the ways they do now? Prescription drug abuse is a significant problem, (if various stories can be trusted) even though pharmacies are boring places.

The reason people distribute drugs in the ways they do now is because there is a financial incentive to do so. Who manipulates the market that creates this financial incentive? Did we not learn anything from prohibition?

John, I think the point is that we’d still arrest people who distribute, much as we do now, but that the market for such dealers would largely dry up. This is the situation in European countries that have tried this. You won’t eliminate it all, of course, You’ll still have people who want to use meth or ecstasy in a dance club for instance. But you’ll remove the habitual users from the market place. And that will have a devastating effect on the business of drugs.

Matt, my point is that a DUI convict trying to purchase alcohol should be akin to trying to purchase a firearm when you have a felony. i.e. a lifetime ban.

While I’m sure 90% of people can drink responsibly there is the issue of teenage/early 20′s binge drinking and then all those who don’t drink responsibly. A lot of crime is tied to alcohol abuse. Once again there is hard evidence that increasing prices decreases that kind of drinking. Likewise tying criminal behavior to the ability to purchase alcohol makes a lot of sense. Will it stop it all? Of course not. Not even remotely. But it will have a pretty big effect.

And the fact 90% of people don’t see it as a serious matter means more needs to be done in education. Something the “drug war” has been dismal at. (“Just say no” is a failed program yet it continues to be done) Look at tobacco and how it has been curbed largely by a combination of education and taxes.

Jerry, could you clarify what you mean by raising the price merely resulted in more thefts? I’m not sure what you are referring to. I think one problem in Utah is that the laws are just plain stupid. There is absolutely zero reason to make it hard to go in a bar if people act responsibly. What I’m suggesting is that we tax things and then allow responsible users to use in a responsible fashion.

Rameumptom, I just don’t have the facts to be able to answer that. My guess is it’s hard to compare if only because society is so different. For instance during prohibition if there was a car crash due to alcohol and if today there was a car crash which is worse? The cost of goods is more now. Further our improved health care entails we can do more for victims but at a higher cost. Yet people earned much less back then. So how does one even quantify the comparison?

I think there are far more social structures (non-legal) in effect today that change how alcohol is used. For instance even ignoring the laws on DUI I think there is a much bigger social stigma related to it. We tolerate a lot of behaviors less than they once were. Although obviously that probably differs in different subcultures.

I do feel that de-criminalizing would reduce crime if the money now spent on criminal consequences (police enforcement, prison costs) were transferred into treating it as more of a medical situation (i.e. mandatory rehabilitation treatments, regular testing)

I don’t think it would merely shift things, although clearly this is somewhat hypothetical. I’m not sure we can appeal to Europe too much since our culture is quite different. But I think that you’ll reduce both crime due to the business of drugs and also crime due to the use of drugs. Consider that if you are in a hospital to get your fix you will not be in a home in an uncontrolled situation. i.e. you won’t be driving under the influence of drugs, you won’t be potentially abusing your family due to being under the influence.

Now alcohol is different in that you can use it. But I think that if we restrict your ability to get alcohol once you’ve abused your right and demand treatment that’ll have a huge effect on anticiliary crimes.

I think though that ultimately we’ll only know for sure if we actually try these things out. And right now few want to. It’s easier to put forth scare claims (i.e. drug use will increase astronomically) that are really far less grounded in facts than the above. But we have to try something because the one undeniable fact is that the current strategies are vastly expensive with little return for the dollar. (And arguably have made things worse)

Clark, I appreciate you putting your ideas on the block for all of us to take a poke at them. The current situation is unsatisfying, and alternatives all have their weaknesses. (Sometimes it seems like the solution space for so many things is the empty set.) The SWAT team problem bothers me, too. Each law chips away at the liberty of everyone. We all end up being required to some extent to prove we aren’t criminals.

I wonder if solitary, quasi-medicinal abuse of drugs is really preferable to a more social vice in dance club-type settings. It may be like the difference between going to a bar with friends on the weekend and getting cut off by the bartender when you’ve had enough, compared to downing all you want at home limited only by your own discipline.

I also wonder what the real history of prohibition is; we have a standard mythology that it was a complete failure, but I wonder what facts are out there.

“Did we not learn anything from prohibition?”

I think we learned that allowing people to have a couple drinks every now and then, or a glass or two of wine at dinner, is not nearly as problematic as the organized crime associated with complete prohibition. If you’re going to apply the same argument to Meth (for example), you’d have to show that taking a hit is as innocuous as drinking a beer at lunch.

Clark, I’m just not convinced that:

1) gangs wouldn’t pick up some other cash route, like theft, etc. That’s not an argument against decriminalizing drugs, rather it’s an argument against using gangs as a reason to decriminalize drugs.

2) all drugs can be safely used. How do we go about administering drugs to people who want them? Do they check into the clinic, take a hit and then wait around for it to wear off? What if they want another right away, do we let them hang out in the clinic all week? How is it paid for? And how to we keep people from hitting the clinic for a bit of coke and once there moving on up the chain to harder drugs? I’m really asking here, btw.

Marijuana seems to most innocuous, but I’m glad it’s illegal simply because it reeks. I already can’t stand tobacco smoke.

Facts about Drugs: Alcohol still accounts for more than 80% of the substance abuse disorder and the bulk of drug-related illness and violence.

I’m no expert but I think this masks the different nature of the effects of alcohol addition and say meth addition. I would not expect meth addicts show up in the above categories. Meth users tend to withdraw from the social interactions that are needed for disorder and violence. On the other hand, drug users like meth addicts probably are far more prevalent in property related crimes such as theft.

The morphology of alcohol addiction seems to be genetic and environmental. A person with out those risks will probably not become an alcohol addict. This is probably most of the population who use alcohol. Meth addiction, on the other hand, does not require that morphology. It might be there but addiction can occur with the first use of meth, regardless of morphology.

However, regardless of the type of addiction, I think it is important to take the addict out of his environment, i.e. incarceration. The way an addict comes to the attention of the state is when the person is arrested because of some crime committed. The state views the perpetrator as a ‘criminal’ who uses drugs rather than addict who has committed a crime. As a consequence, the addict tends to be placed in the general criminal population of our prisons.

Again, I’m no expert, but it seems to me we need two types of prisons. One which addresses criminals who have no drug addiction and one which deals with addicts who have committed a crime. In the second type of prison, the addiction is the primary problem that is addressed. They are not criminals per se. They are addicts who have committed a crime. Current prisons are not equipped to deal with drug addiction as the major problem. In the second type of prison, the underlying morphology, if there is one, must be identified and addressed. Of course, none of this will mean much if the person is not interested in dealing with his addiction. However, this second type of prison will probably give them the best chance of overcoming their addiction. At least, this looks this way to my uneducated eye.

Rich