So. What is the "drug problem"? We can answer that fairly easily, I think, by:
First of all, there are four classes of people involved. In some cases they overlap. It's useful to identify the classes as an aid to visualization. They are:
The street prices of drugs are directly related to supply and demand, and of course to the usual metrics for any product, such as quality, variety, and marketing strategies.
The anti-drug forces work to reduce the supply. This increases the costs to the consumer. In fact, it is the key factor in increasing the costs to the point where it is worthwhile to pursue drug supply as a career. This is nothing else but trivial economics.
So the suppliers increase the price, and as some of them go out of business as a result of the anti-drug forces actions, others obtain a tighter hold upon a particular market segment. The suppliers who remain active after any anti-drug force action clearly benefit. So it is clear that it is in the best interest of the suppliers who are not interfered with by the anti-drug forces to see other suppliers bear the brunt of such action. Again, this is nothing more than trivially simple logic and common economic interactions.
In order to avoid such action by the anti-drug forces, suppliers go armed as a matter of course. This aids them in both potential clashes with other suppliers, and with the anti-drug forces. Drug suppliers are killed, anti-drug force members are killed, and occasionally consumers and uninvolved individuals are also killed. This, I believe, is a direct result of this area of commerce being illegal. These problems don't occur in the purveying of coffee, for instance, a medium strength legal stimulant. That's because it's legal, and not profitable to handle as an underground product.
Who benefits from all this? Funds go to jails, police forces, politicians have issues to discuss that allow them to avoid boring (but critically important) issues such as the country's infrastructure, the incredibly complicated and unfair legal and tax systems, etc.
Who is hurt by this? Many consumers and some suppliers are spending time in jail, at a fairly high cost to the average citizen. Poor quality drugs kill large numbers of consumers every year. The financial cost of this underground commerce takes directly away from the resources that these consumers could spread around elsewhere. Kids have direct access to drugs as a result of them being in the street, instead of in the stores. It's pretty easy to see who is really hurt, isn't it?
Medical costs are now also borne by the average citizen. If drugs were legal, and subject to taxation, there would be an available alternative for funding whatever problems remain. Interesting to think about.
My position here is that if drugs were legal, then these costs would not occur (and those in the anti-drug forces would have to find productive jobs).
Individual consumers are being hurt by the war on drugs. Not by drugs, in the general case. Some individual suppliers and anti-drug front-liners also. The anti-drug forces overall benefit by increased funding, publicity, and staffing. The suppliers benefit by an increase in prices and consolidation of territories. Politicians benefit directly by having "pound the pulpit" material and frightening stories to instill fear in the masses, and I contend that a major benefit is that they do not have to deal with more difficult issues.
Lets think about decriminalization. Drugs would then be available over the counter. They are inexpensive (and higher quality, also; regulated products always are). There are fewer unintentional overdoses, poisonings, and just plain mistakes. The black market, gun toting types go out of business; there is no market they can afford to cater to. The anti drug forces go out of business; no breaking of laws, so no need for them. That money is saved. It can go to something useful, like paying teachers better, or just education in general. The social cachet of using an illegal product; the flaunting of society... is gone. Drugs are far less expensive, so there is much less need for theft and other illegal activities to support a habit, for those who have one (When is the last time you saw, or heard of, a habitual drunk rob to get a fix? probably never... alcohol is not expensive. There's a lesson in that.)
Now, in this scenario, who uses drugs? Those who really want to, that's who. So, what do we do about them? Why should we have to do anything about them?
What about kids? Don't we want to stop kids from using drugs? Right now, a kid can get drugs anywhere, thanks to the black market made possible by the anti-drug forces. If you legalize them, and they're not on the street, they've got to get them from the store. That's not nearly as much fun, not nearly as revolutionary, not nearly as "cool". It seems fairly obvious that drug availability to young people will drop, and the some of the coolness factor will erode. That will put a serious dent in drug use by the young, in my opinion.
Now, here's something else of interest. Kids use alcohol, a legal drug. But they don't get it on the street in the general case. It's still not profitable to get it on the street, because it's just too inexpensive elsewhere. Society has it's finger on the alcohol problem, and society says that the parents must take responsibility for ensuring that their children do not fall into the habit of alcohol use. There are penalties for supplying children with alcohol, both social and legal. Isn't that interesting? Of course, if you're not willing to let the parents take responsibility, there you go.
Finally, the "drug warriors" lie to kids as a matter of course. "This is your brain... This is your brain on drugs". So, when a young person tries pot, for instance, and finds that:
...then you know what? Those lies then do the leading to the harder drugs instead. The logic is simple and chilling: "If pot is really O.K., then they're probably lying about crack, too..." The anti drug forces are performing the "cry wolf" from the fairy tale, and when the really dangerous drugs get in front of a teenager, they have been fortified by the positive knowledge that they've already been lied to. So what is it that leads those kids to harder drugs? The drug warriors, that's who. And, oh yes... should those kids get caught experimenting, they may well lose their freedom. There are still people from the 70's rotting in the New York jails for marijuana use, you know.
So. I can tell you what the drug problem is. And I can do it in one word: Government. They benefit by the war on drugs, while the citizens (well, all of them except politicians and antidrug force members) lose. So. What shall we tell our elected representatives?
Do I use drugs, I hear you wondering? No. I don't. I'm probably more anti drug than the people in the anti drug forces. I hate drugs. I hate the whole disgusting mess. I hate alcohol. I hate the very idea that escape from reality is preferable to the beauty around us. I have always counseled the young people I have taught (I am a martial arts instructor) that recreational drug use is a dead end, and that includes alcohol, cigarettes, and chewing tobacco. I do my best to tell the truth about it, and to show the real reasons why its a dead end. I don't lie. In fact, I point out the lies because it enhances my credibility with young people. They already know they're being lied to by the government and its crusaders, so there's no harm in my simply agreeing with them anyway. With an adult, I don't say a word, because I don't feel I have the right to. Its their choice, and it'll be their consequences.
Do I think there ought to be any laws about this? Yes. I do. I think that if under the influence of a drug, a person causes harm to anyone else, they should be subject to the absolute maximum penalty possible. For instance, you have a car accident under the influence, we kill you. You strike someone while under the influence, we kill you. You steal while under the influence, we cut off your hands. I'm sure you get the picture. Why so harsh? Because I believe that responsibility lies in you when you take the drug. There is no such thing as "I was drunk, I didn't mean it". No, they were drunk, they chose to become drunk, and so should have no escape by matter of reasoning. It is clear, in fact, that they voluntarily left the domain of reason and entered into the domain of unreason, as that's what drug use is. If they cannot control themselves, they must pay the maximum. That, I believe, will generate more responsible behavior than any other approach.
Do I think any of this will come to pass? No. I don't. Because those in power benefit directly from the current situation. Your pastors and social workers, your government, the black marketers. It'll never be socially acceptable to stand up and wave this nasty truth around, they'll crucify you in a heartbeat. And you, the general public, are cowards. So what do you get as your reward for your silence or your "parroting" the government's drug policies? You get the drug problem. Your problem. Your kids problem.
Have a nice day. :-)
Back to my Serious Issues page.