Why Drug Policy Should Change

Introduction

I claim few qualifications to write on drugs issues, the main one being that I worked for many years in the music industry, where drug abuse was, and still is, endemic. I also worked as a psychotherapist in England, both as a counselor for young people, where drugs issues are commonplace, as well as for an Employee Assistance Program, where I was involved in developing drug policies for client companies. I also contributed a number of letters to the London Independent on drug policy for several years. I now live in the United States, where drug problems—and drug policy—are most severe.

It seems to me that far from being helpful, the current US policy of strict prohibition does more harm than good, as the attempt with alcohol did a generation ago. Today, thirty years into this "war" on drugs and its associated arms race, we are beginning to see a new kind of harm—what might be called a growing 'sovietization' of America—something Gore Vidal foresees as "the End of Liberty." Prohibition thus poses questions that go to the root of liberty and democracy.

Dr. Martin Luther King, in his famous letter from Birmingham jail said: ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’ He would probably not be surprised to know that there are plenty of people on the receiving end of some rough justice in connection with drugs—and that a disproportionate number of them are African American. Some of these are ordinary people whose money and possessions have been taken from them merely on suspicion of being involved in the drugs trade. The victims of such seizures have to demonstrate that they are innocent of any wrongdoing in order to recover their possessions. Whatever happened to due process and “innocent until proven guilty”? Is this not also harm?

The following is a somewhat inchoate polemic against current drug policy. In light of the tragedy of September 11, 2001, one wonders whether the much sexier evil of world terror will so eclipse its narcotic forerunner that sense might finally start to prevail in drug policy, without any political embarrassment.

---

On one thing we can all agree: too many lives are lost or harmed in connection with drugs.[1] Beyond this statement however, there is much disagreement about the causes and effects of drug taking, which substances and policies are problematic, and what, if anything, should be done about it. It may be useful to bear in mind that most recreational drug-taking, whether legally sanctioned or otherwise, is harmless, or nearly so—not everyone who enjoys a glass of wine with their dinner is an alcoholic and not everyone who takes an illegal drug is a wild-eyed thief, mugger or addict. Psychoactive substances have been in widespread use for millennia and some would argue that our world would be a poorer place without them. We would be asked to consider the artists, musicians and writers who have found inspiration whilst under the influence of some substance or other and left the rest of us a little better off as a result. But whatever benefits or pleasures these substances may bring, in the margins at least, drug taking is going to cause physical or psychological harm of some kind.

At issue then, is the question of how to most effectively minimize drug-related harm. For the last thirty years, US government policy in this regard has been one of strict prohibition. It is a crime to possess, manufacture, consume or supply certain substances. In 1971 President Nixon famously declared this policy a “War on Drugs,”[2] and a generation later his war is being waged more forcefully than ever. But victory, in any meaningful sense, looks less likely than ever. Drugs are more plentiful than ever; they are cheaper than ever; and demand for them is greater than ever. It may well be asked, if the world’s most powerful government can’t win a war in 30 years, perhaps it would be prudent to consider some alternative strategies. Indeed, it is remarkable that such an expensive and divisive policy continues to attract support after such consistent and protracted failure. As a result of this war, the United States has a higher proportion of its population locked up than any other civilized country in the world. [3] By what criteria can this be called a success?

There are many people whose health is at risk because they take psychoactive substances, especially those who do so regularly or to excess. But there are many more—millions more—whose lives have been blighted not by drugs themselves but by the criminalization of drug taking [4] and the draconian penalties involved. Indeed, for some youngsters we have created a kind of perverse incentive, because it is precisely the illegality that carries appeal. And this is despite the fact that worldwide, public education has conformed broadly to the American-inspired “Just-Say-No” message that all drug-taking is uniformly harmful, immoral, or both. In some instances this teaching has been taken to ridiculous extremes and is reminiscent of the sexual morality of earlier generations. [5]

While we struggle for answers to this ongoing tragedy, one thing seems increasingly clear—the current policy is only making a difficult situation worse. The first and biggest obstacle in the way to a better drug policy is a psychological one. In the United States, we cannot, or will not, openly talk about drugs except in strictly prescribed, politically correct terms. Drug policy is a dangerous topic—one does not criticize the Emperor’s fine new clothes. Any deviation from the standard drugs-are-evil argument marks one as a dissenter, an outsider, maybe even a troublemaker. In public life, when a position on drug policy is declared, a measure of ‘us-or-them-ness’ comes with it. Not surprisingly, most people choose to either avoid the whole issue or else tow the official line. Few politicians are going to risk their jobs by publicly saying it’s OK to get high once in a while. It would be the equivalent of pointing out that the Emperor is indeed naked.

In his book Totem and Taboo Sigmund Freud examined this psychology. On the one hand there is the insider—understood, included, respected and perhaps even revered—which he called Totem, and on the other the outsider—excluded, mistrusted and feared—which he called Taboo. Interestingly, many Hollywood films have this polarity as their theme—where the hero who ends up saving the day and getting the girl is viewed with suspicion and hostility at first.[6] He moves from taboo to totem. Established drug policy is totem. Alternatives are taboo. And there doesn’t seem to be a Gary Cooper or Clint Eastwood waiting in the political wings.

For too long this psychology has meant that any dissent from the official, totem position on drug policy is a kind of heresy—it marks one as dangerous, an outsider, a loose cannon. And as an outside voice, it is much harder to be listened to and taken seriously.[7]This fear of open expression makes any meaningful debate almost impossible, and worse, can stifle the truth. As an example of this, it is widely alleged that researchers conducting drug studies, afraid of losing funding and status, have committed the cardinal sin of science and ensured that their findings conform to their political patrons’ agenda and not to the data. An expected practice in Soviet Russia perhaps, but surely not in contemporary America.[8]

With such a long-entrenched, miserable situation, it can seem that we are a long way from a solution, but some ‘totem’ voices are at last beginning to call for a rethink on this hard-line policy, particularly in Europe. The governments of Holland, Switzerland, Portugal, Italy, Belgium and others are tentatively starting to approach the whole issue of illegal drugs in a new light. They have given the American method every chance and concluded it doesn’t work. In conservative Switzerland, for example, to counter a growing problem with intravenous drug use, heroin is now freely given to addicts by the state. A spokesman from the Department of Public Health in Berne recently said: “We tried an approach of repression and intolerance, treating heroin addicts as criminals, but it simply got us nowhere.”[9] Indeed, at the time of writing (2002), the Swiss seem set on legalizing cannabis—a referendum is likely to be held in the next year or so. Even Britain—usually so keen to tow the American line—is reexamining its drug laws.

No matter how tough enforcement gets, drug-taking remains extremely popular. Demand is enormous, and drugs are cheap and available, despite the harshest penalties users and dealers have ever had to face. It is surely time for something to give. The results of policy relaxation, as Switzerland, Holland and others have discovered, are much more benign than we might imagine.[10] As a British pundit put it: “One doesn’t solve the problem of burglary by making possessions illegal.”[11] 

But if changing policy on the grounds of practicality and compassion are considered insufficient, there is another, constitutional reason to abandon prohibition.  It is in everyone’s interests that the rule of law is respected and followed. For contemporary legislators this, it seems, is a difficult task, not least because the days of blind public obedience to a government’s dictates are gone. The Jeffersonian “We” have become accustomed to liberty and We like it. If people are to respect the rule of law today, a corresponding duty of respect falls on legislators—to ensure that their legislation is not self-interested or arbitrary, and that it prevents some involuntary harm from occurring. In other words, we all need to see that it makes sense. For example, if the legislature made it illegal to manufacture, possess or supply refined sugar, it had better come up with an unassailable reason why. The argument that excessive sugar consumption can lead to numerous health problems would not be reason enough for a ban when moderate sugar use carries little or no risk.

Given that this argument holds for so many banned substances, what then, is really behind prohibition? Perhaps it is because the idea of taking drugs for enjoyment is in such bad taste? Or perhaps it is a lingering religious tendency to echo the Augustinian assertion that what is pleasurable must also be sinful?[12]

On the grounds of reason alone, it is hard to think of a credible defense of prohibition. As we have just seen, the argument for prohibition on the grounds of harm-to-self is a non-starter; otherwise we should be forbidden from doing just about anything.[13]The next argument of “If it wasn’t banned, everyone (or at least a large number) would do it,” is also . What if everyone were to become vegetarian? What if most people were to throw away their TV’s? What if half the population had voted for Pat Buchanan? There is a price for freedom. Not everyone goes hang-gliding, but some do, and some get hurt or even killed. Not everyone drinks, but a large number do, and many get regularly intoxicated. There are costs to that. Costs we should try to reduce. On the other hand, the attempt at prohibiting alcohol in the United States caused much more harm than its supporters ever claimed it would prevent. That was very costly indeed. So is the current prohibition of drugs.

The argument for prohibition on the grounds of ‘preventing social harm’ (the “Who Knows Where This Might Lead” defense) on first sight seems a bit more respectable, but on closer inspection it too collapses. We need to be clear about what this supposed ‘social harm’ actually is. If it means that repealing prohibition would somehow lead to huge numbers of people abusing drugs, getting sick, not showing up for work, neglecting their kids and so on, then prohibition must be driven by fear and not fact. There is no evidence that this nightmare scenario would be the result. Huge numbers of people already take drugs of some kind, and the vast majority of them lead normal, productive lives. The number of people taking drugs might increase in a world without prohibition, but the question is, how many more would abuse drugs in such a world?

Or perhaps ‘social harm’ boils down to social change. Obviously, society is always changing. The government has no mandate to preserve society the way it is now or was at some point in the past, even if such a thing were possible. Certainly, some laws need to be non-negotiable for the world to be civilized. But by what authority does a government presume to control what adults may do with their own minds and bodies?

If a person wants to risk harm to themselves—and only themselves—then the state should not interfere. The philosopher John Stuart Mill articulated this concept in his famous book On Liberty published in 1859. He wrote:

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. . .  . Over his own mind and body the individual is sovereign.”[14] 

In most ways we are indeed sovereign. If we eat a pound of saturated fat every day, then we will soon die, or at least become very ill. We might ride a motorcycle—another activity which carries risk; we could sink a bottle of vodka every day, take up boxing or even throw ourselves under a train. But while we may be foolish or even unhinged to do these things, no policeman is going to arrest us for them. It would be more than just illogical to involve the criminal law in these matters, it would be utterly outrageous. Yet if a person merely grows a few marijuana plants in her back yard, financial and social ruin is a real risk. She may well ask: why?

Mill’s question remains: Should the state be able to restrict what a competent adult may do with her own mind and body?  

In South America and elsewhere, there are a small number of men who control most of the world’s illegal drug supply. They are very, very rich.[15]They acquired this wealth—and continue to—because demand for their products is so enormous. Thanks to this huge demand, drugs become more valuable the more they are prohibited and thus the incentive to supply drugs increases along with the risk involved.[16]There is another reason these men are so rich. They pay no taxes on their enormous income, only bribes, thereby wielding influence where they should not—in official circles.

Ironically, it is the American public who foot most of the bill for both sides in this ridiculous "war". The US taxpayer stumps up forty billion dollars each year[17]to fund various agencies in their attempts to halt drug supply and distribution, yet it is the enormous demand for drugs from the same American public that keeps the suppliers in Ferraris and yachts.

But the madness gets worse—one only has to look at the other costs of prohibition: an extra million Americans incarcerated—at around $25,000 per head per year (which means the public purse is down a million payroll taxes each month); funds diverted away from deserving areas; and perhaps most worryingly, some commentators are describing the United States as beginning to resemble one of those oppressive regimes so long decried as the very antithesis of what this country stands for.[18] The term “Police State” has even been mentioned recently. This looks less like a War on Drugs and more like a War On Americans Who Won’t Dance To The Approved Tune. 

For all these reasons, drug policy should change. It should shift away from prohibition—of supply and consumption—and towards finding more effective ways to reduce the harm associated with drugs, preferably before they are consumed. And that means tackling the demand side. In any event, we should stop trying to deny people their intoxication. If that is what people want, they will surely get it, as we can plainly see. We should start encouraging and facilitating safety and health instead.

As for the likelihood of change. Are the top dogs at the DEA likely to suggest or even support a rethink on the war? How many turkeys would vote for Christmas? There are a lot of well paid jobs in the drug war and one of the country’s most powerful and influential agencies is hardly likely to suggest that there has been a bit of a mistake and it might be best for everyone if it dissolved itself in favor of a new policy. On the other hand, while the drug suppliers would no doubt prefer it if the Americans didn’t try quite so hard to stop their products from moving around the world, they have no wish to see drugs legalized. They would soon face stiff competition from the pharmaceutical giants. They would no doubt prefer to retain their profitable monopoly. Thus we have another great irony—neither the US government nor the drug suppliers wish to see any fundamental change in policy. 

For more than thirty years, ever increasing resources have been appropriated by governments in support of prohibition. During this time, politicians have personally and repeatedly committed themselves to the policy, and the war on drugs has thus become little short of a holy crusade. Indeed, the metaphor is a good one, for in the crusades of old, Christian kings gathered their armies and blundered about at tremendous cost, doing dreadful things to people who held different views—including their own countrymen—and justified it all in the righteous outcome of their holy war. . . which they lost.

©  2002 www.RobinPrior.net 

Notes
 

---