 

[Note: This is a repost of my earlier response to Mr. Starr,
which was not properly formatted.  Apologies to those who've
seen the following before:]

To explain my position on the "War On Drugs," I offer this:

Drugs And Crime: A New Approach

by Ken Barnes


Given that:

1. The trade in illegal drugs is responsible for 
much of the crime which afflicts our nation.

2. People who want drugs (particularly people who 
are predisposed to addiction) will find a way to get 
them, whether or not they are legally available.

3. Despite current law enforcement efforts, drugs 
are readily available to those who want them.

4. Addiction to drugs, both legal and illegal, is 
responsible for a significant drain on the productive 
resources of our country, and this occurs in a variety 
of ways, from the cocaine-addicted babies who are 
unable to learn, to the spread of disease among 
addicts, to the tragic consequences of alcohol abuse 
and tobacco smoking.

5. A general economic principle of government is 
that whatever is subsidized you get more of, and 
whatever is taxed you get less of.  To be most 
effective in confronting the nation's drug problem, 
some way must be found to utilize these additional 
powers of government to make drug dealing and drug use 
less attractive.

While this country's current efforts to combat 
legal drugs have succeeded in some respects, (there is 
a greater awareness of the health consequences of 
smoking, and designated-driver programs have helped 
reduce drunk driving, for example), the same cannot be 
said for the "war" on illegal drugs.  There remains a 
core group of illegal drug users which support 
international networks of smugglers, pushers, growers, 
processors, kingpins, and gangsters.  These networks 
and their "marketing activities," which include drive-
by shootings, corrupting law enforcement authorities, 
and smuggling weapons, are directly or indirectly 
responsible for a large proportion of the crimes 
committed in our country every day.

Clearly, illegal drugs and rising crime are 
linked.  It takes only a moment's reflection to 
recognize how they are linked.  The link is money.  As 
with this country's failed effort to prohibit alcohol 
consumption, a black market has been created, in which 
greedy local monopolies, like the gangsters of a 
bygone era, have profited enormously from their 
illegal trade.  The victims of this trade include not 
only the innocent people unfortunate enough to be 
caught in the crossfire, but, I would argue, the drug 
users themselves.

Were it not for the black market, and the violent 
monopoly of the drug lords, drug users might not be 
the thieves, robbers, prostitutes and murderers they 
have become in order to pay the high prices the drug 
lords demand.  In the absence of the drug lords, most  
would be, I believe, simply people with a problem, 
either a moral problem_or_a medical problem, but_not_a 
criminal problem.

Let me be clear however, I am_not_advocating that 
we let the criminals who have been preying on our 
society for these many years of Prohibition off the 
hook.  On the contrary, the new approach I advocate is 
one which would not result in either the government or 
private industry getting into the business of 
promoting crack cocaine, or any other presently 
illegal drug for that matter.  Neither is it an 
approach which sees law abiding citizens handing over 
more and more of their freedom and privacy in an 
effort to track down illegal drug users, until "the 
land of the free and the home of the brave" looks like 
a police state.

Here then is my proposal:

1. Possession and use of all presently illegal 
drugs is decriminalized, but buying and selling them 
remains illegal.  'Potheads' can grow their own 
marijuana (as many already do today), other drug users 
can legally import their poison of choice as long as 
they pay the tariffs, and a barter economy of drug 
experimenters develops.

2. Because of the barter economy which supplies 
the drug users, the black market profits that have so 
enriched the drug lords dwindle.  If these drugs can 
be obtained for 'free' or next to nothing, why buy 
them?  Nevertheless, there will be those who will seek 
to sell these "noncommercial" drugs even at relatively 
low prices.  Therefore,

3. Law enforcement activity is concentrated on 
those individuals who continue to buy and sell, and 
also on the crimes committed by drug users too poor to 
afford even low prices.  But here is where the 
strategy begins to differentiate between the drug 
dealers, the victimizers, and the drug users, their 
victims.

4. Upon arrest for_any_crime,_suspects are 
permitted to choose whether or not they will undergo a 
drug test.  Those who choose to cooperate are informed 
that upon conviction for the crime they are accused 
of, if they are found to be a drug user, they will be 
institutionalized until they are clean, and only then 
will they begin to serve their sentence.  If they 
choose to cooperate and are already drug-free, they 
can begin to serve their sentence right away.  Those 
who choose not to undergo the drug test and are 
convicted face stiffer fines and serve longer 
sentences.

5. Institutionalization of drug using criminals 
serves several purposes:

Drug using criminals (and this includes drunk 
and/or 'stoned' drivers) are separated from their 
sources of supply, thus reducing the total number of 
drug users in society at large, and consequently 
decreasing the demand for drugs on the street, putting 
more of the remaining drug dealers out of business.

Institutionalization provides an incentive for 
drug using criminals to straighten themselves out, 
before becoming part of the general prison population.

While helping protect society from crime, 
institutionalization could also serve to deter drug 
users from becoming criminals, since drug using 
criminals, unlike other criminals, would be delayed 
prior to serving their sentences by the additional 
time it takes for them to sober up.

Institutionalization of drug using criminals 
separate from the general prison population would also 
provide a closely monitored pool of addicts who could 
volunteer for research studies of new techniques and 
treatments for addictive disease, with the potential 
to benefit both themselves and others.

6. Dealers in illegal drugs are generally not 
drug users themselves, and this is particularly true 
of the drug bosses or kingpins running large illicit 
organizations.  Under this proposal, dealers would be 
more readily identifiable, since upon arrest they 
would presumably pass the drug test, or else decline 
to take it in order to avoid having to explain why 
they are in possession of drugs when it is apparent 
they do not use them.  Declining to take the test, 
they would of course face stiffer penalties.  While 
each case of attempted sale of a noncommercial drug 
would have to stand on own its merits, the outcome of 
a suspect's drug test could provide additional 
evidence for the prosecution.

7. Just as cigarette taxes have contributed to 
the decline of smoking in our country by making 
cigarettes more costly while at the same time 
providing revenue for anti-smoking campaigns, 
noncommercial drugs should be taxed, and the money 
generated should be used to combat their use.  
Enforcement of this tax should be on a voluntary basis 
however, and should not be used as an excuse to 
infringe on the rights and privacy of noncommercial 
drug users, since to do so would have the effect of 
reintroducing Prohibition.

Instead, drug users will be encouraged to pay the 
tax by reminding them that if untaxed drugs are ever 
found in their possession during the course of routine 
police operations, they will be required to pay the 
tax immediately or else forfeit their untaxed drugs to 
be destroyed.  If drug dealers are found to be selling 
noncommercial drugs on which taxes have not been paid, 
they will face additional prosecution for evading the 
tax.  The strategy of adding tax evasion to drug 
dealing charges is already in use in some 
jurisdictions, but its effectiveness is currently 
limited by the illegality of drug possession.

Revenue from drug possession taxes and import 
tariffs would be used to fund anti-drug advertising 
campaigns, and provide support to private sector drug 
treatment programs for those unable to afford 
treatment.

8. Taxpayer subsidies to all drug producers must 
be ended.  Federal support of tobacco farming is both 
immoral and wasteful in this era of tight budgets, and 
the marijuana crops grown illicitly on federal lands 
in many states must likewise be eliminated.

While my proposal would have the effect of 
permitting the use of what are now illegal drugs, it 
would hold the users of all drugs responsible for 
their actions, and I believe, would reduce the harm 
drugs have on our society, particularly the crime 
caused by the illegal drug trade.  So long as we 
remain a free nation, with relatively porous borders, 
and freedom for our citizens to travel, we will always 
have a drug problem.  Whether it takes the form of 
heroin addicts dying in abandoned buildings, drunk 
drivers killing and maiming others on our streets, or 
emphysema patients struggling for breath after a 
lifetime of smoking, the results are the same: 
needless suffering and death.  As a society we must 
recognize that while our society permits us to harm 
ourselves with drugs, as we are already doing 
(regardless of the drug laws), we must take a stand 
against the harm that drugs and drug users cause to 
others.  We must particularly oppose the vicious and 
violent cartels which prey on the weakness of drug 
users.  By taking the profits out of their deadly 
trade, my proposal goes a long way towards shutting 
down these powerful criminal organizations.

The question of whether drug use is a moral or 
medical problem depends on which group of drug users 
you're talking about.  Different drugs have different 
effects, and some are more addictive than others.  The 
addictiveness of a drug also often varies between 
individuals, and so we have some people who can drink 
alcohol in moderation, while others find they cannot 
resist the bottle.  Nicotine, which former Surgeon 
General C. Everett Koop declared to be as addicting as 
heroin, is a legal drug with known harmful effects, 
and while some people can stop smoking by willpower 
alone, others continue to smoke even after treatment 
for lung cancer.

For those individuals who can stop taking drugs 
on their own, we may argue that because they have 
chosen to use them, this represents a moral failure on 
their part, or an unwillingness to face the 
difficulties of life.  But for the addicts, while they 
may have chosen to use drugs the first time, by the 
time they discover their addiction it is too late.  We 
cannot hold them responsible for their disease, any 
more than we would blame someone who is drowning for 
an inability to swim.  Perhaps they should have known 
not to go near the water, or perhaps someone should 
have warned them of the danger, but in their present 
circumstances warnings will not help.  Neither does it 
help for the drug dealers on the shore to be tossing 
them weights. 
