Toward a Sane Drug Policy
The first criterion of any fair and
effective public policy is that its premises
must be based on fact and sound reason.
The second is that the objectives derived
from those premises must be realistic,
consistent, and beneficial, while posing as
few restrictions upon individual liberty as
possible. Where such things as drugs
are concerned, a third consideration is that
policy must take into account human whims and
desires, which, though often at odds with
pure reason, are not always necessarily
harmful. At present, United States
policy regarding recreational drugs (those
taken for sensory effect rather than for
therapeutic purposes) fails wretchedly on
each count, and consequently in its
effect. Indeed, it is probably fair to
say that failure is the only truly consistent
feature of U.S. drug policy. But though
current policy is fraught with inconsistency,
there is reason to believe that replacement
of the current taboo-ridden system with a
sound and objective one would not be
impossible.
Because the premises of
current drug policy are based as often on
hysterical prohibitionist myth (as expressed,
for example, in the 1920s propaganda film
"Reefer Madness") as on scientific
fact, its objectives and methods are
correspondingly confused and
irrational. For example, while
tobacco's unhealthful qualities are warned
against by the Surgeon General's office, its
cultivation is subsidized by
government. Meanwhile, cannabis and
other relatively benign substances[1]
are routinely lumped together with dangerous
and highly addictive drugs like heroin and
crack cocaine. Consequently, the
production of some undeniably harmful
substances is rewarded with subsidies, while
casual or even medicinal use of marijuana is
punishable by imprisonment. Is it any
wonder, then, that many people, having dared
to experiment with some supposedly
"dangerous" drugs and finding them
no more addictive or harmful than legal
drugs, come to mistrust authority and
subsequently try other substances which turn
out to be truly dangerous, even deadly?
The only way this insane situation can be
corrected is for drug laws and regulations to
be revamped, so that policy no longer
conflicts with reality. In order for
this to happen, we must demand a methodical
and unbiased evaluation (by scientists,
obviously, not by politicians) of each
substance's transient and cumulative effects,
such as toxicity, addictiveness,
hallucinogenesis, pathogenesis, and
impairment (or enhancement) of sensory,
motor, and mental function. These must
then be weighed against any beneficial
effects, whether analgesic, therapeutic, or
simply pleasurable. Only when we have a
clear idea of what problems various drugs
pose — as well as what effects are not
really problems — can we intelligently
formulate effective drug policy.
To begin, it makes little sense for
government to victimize further those who are
already the victims of drug addiction and
trafficking. Therefore, mere chemical
dependence should be treated as a medical
problem, not a crime, except when related
activity of the user (such as assault,
robbery, abuse of spouse or children, or
driving or using firearms while intoxicated)
poses a threat to others. In other
words, drug policy should mirror alcohol
policy: We do not throw people into
prison for abuse of a substance, unless they
commit crimes under its influence; otherwise,
we treat substance addicts medically, as
victims of a disorder. It makes no
sense whatever to imprison people if they do
not abuse or threaten anyone else.
Next, drugs with only minimal harmful
effects should be decriminalized, and any
whose negative effects are insignificant or
outweighed by benefits should be fully
legalized. Once minor drugs are made
legal, their production and distribution can
be subject (as is now the case with alcohol
and tobacco) to government regulation and
inspection, and risk to consumers thereby
further reduced. Moreover, not only
would the expense of such government
oversight amount to a mere fraction of that
now frittered away on chasing, trying, and
incarcerating producers and traffickers of
"soft" drugs, it could be
completely recovered by taxing the sales of
those substances.
Not until the problem has been narrowed to
truly dangerous drugs should force of law be
considered as a solution. The purpose
of law is not to impose arbitrary rules, but
to protect society and individuals from
activity which is demonstrably harmful or
threatening. To this end, only the
production and distribution of unqualifiedly
harmful substances, whose use has been shown
to cause strong addiction, psychological
disorders, significant degradation of health,
or the like, should remain criminal
offenses. On the other hand,
potentially dangerous substances which have
beneficial applications should be legal but
regulated, their administration approved and
supervised by medical professionals.
A rational drug policy would offer many
benefits. One of these would be an
immediate reduction in prison population,
once those whose only "offense" has
been to puff a little pot have been released
from their pointless incarceration and
returned to productive life in general
society. Another would be a drastic
reduction of revenues to organized crime,
which profits heavily from traffic in illicit
commodities — even those which are not
harmful. Finally, doing away with the
haphazard misclassification of relatively
benign substances as "dangerous"
and "addictive" would, over time,
do much to restore the now battered
credibility of government, and hence reduce
widespread confusion (particularly among
young experimenters) about which drugs pose
little threat and which are truly
deadly. (No policy will prevent
stupid behavior, but at least a rational
policy will not encourage it.)
The separation of myth from reality is no
easy task, especially since they have been
intertwined for so long. Nevertheless,
it must be undertaken, for the entanglement
of fact and fiction represents the very root
of our difficulty in clearly identifying and
dealing with the drug issue. Laws
serving no demonstrably beneficial purpose
both foster disrespect for law and squander
public resources, and ought to be stricken
from the books. Penalties which serve
neither constructive nor protective ends are
themselves detrimental to any society which
values liberty and justice, and should be
replaced or abolished. While
government's duty to protect the public from
harm is clear, there is no justification
whatever for its interference with the
production and consumption of relatively
harmless substances by responsible adults.
We are right to fear the effects of
dangerous drugs, both upon ourselves and upon
our society. But we must no longer
permit that fear to draw us and our leaders
into irrational and emotional reaction, as it
has done for most of the twentieth
century. Such insanity not only
hopelessly confuses the issue and inflicts
additional harm upon those who are already
victims, it also wastes the resources of
society and imposes undue expense and
hardship upon us all. Instead, our
concern should be directed toward rational,
constructive action calculated to protect and
heal.
The problem is that the crafting of drug
policy is currently entrusted to politicians,
who are as hopelessly enthralled by old myths
as the public they represent. The only
way out of this quandary is to demand that
the job of formulating drug policy be taken
away from politicians and given to experts
who are equipped to deal with the issue
objectively: medical researchers. Only
when we have a clear and objective picture of
which substances actually cause significant
harm and addiction should we call upon
government to establish and enforce drug laws
— realistic laws based on facts and
reason. Any other kind is not worthy of
a nation which prides itself on liberty and
justice.
=SAJ=