a world with drugs

7/28/2019 A World with Drugs

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-world-with-drugs 1/7

Forster 1

Robert M.C. Forster

February 11th, 2013

Social Imagination & Civic Intelligence

Douglas Schuler

A World with Drugs

Humans have long struggled with drug policy. It seems sensible to ban a substance or activity that has the

ability to harm your friends and family, but this very ban transfers the situation from the individual to community

level. The most notable prohibitory failure involved banning alcohol in the United States during the 1930s. Citizens

witnessed the rise of criminals spawned by legislation and, after efforts had not only failed but worsened the social

climate, campaigns commenced to fix our legislative mistakes. From personal experience, this is what comes to

mind if an early 21

st

century American is asked about prohibition — the laughable legislation of the 1930s.

The major prohibition of our time is that of certain psychoactive chemicals. Not specifically dangerous

ones, just a collection of the ones we‟re scared of that have been convenient to outlaw at the time. Over the last

century or so, these substances have been systematically banned once fear overcomes apathy. A drug addict is a

tangible woe and drugs an easy target as a result. We perceive this prohibition as a solution and continue on with our

lives, forgetting humans are curious creatures with surprising resource that don‟t particularly enjoy being told how

to live (hence the creation of the United States of America). The U.S. is honestly attempting to better itself with

prohibition, but it has become absurdly clear this strategy has failed.

Why does this prohibition still exist? I believe people simply do not know better. Citizens around to

experience the prohibition of alcohol in the 1930s had lived in a time without prohibition. They could easily

distinguish between social maladies caused by alcohol and those caused by laws. This is a blessing we currently do

not have; prohibition has become our norm. We‟ve become so used to prohibition that we barely acknowledge a

world without it as a possibility. To make the most civically intelligent choice regarding prohibition of illegal

psychoactive chemicals, we must first envision a world without it.

Whether petty crime or gangs and cartels, drugs seem to facilitate violence. This association has been burnt

into public memory, but why does this violence exist? Would it endure under new law?

Violence as a result of drug addiction is rampant in today‟s world. Much of this violence comes from

artificially-inflated black market drug prices. Because of significant risk in the manufacture, possession, and

distribution of these substances, agents place a substantial mark-up at every step of the process — a black market tax.

For the end user, this means prices hundreds or thousands of times what they could be in a legal market. Strapped



Forster 2

for cash, the addict then resorts to crime as the last chance he has for survival. A legally-sanctioned market (or even

a market without prohibition or regulation) could provide affordable drugs, precluding any need for violence.

Cartels and gangs have terrorized society for decades. These organizations rise to the challenge when

illegal markets make simple business extraordinarily profitable. Because they have no legal alternative to solving

business disputes, these groups resort to violence to sustain their empire. Any efforts to squash them only result in

more profits for the surviving dealers (and incentive for more to join the game).

“As was the case with the US prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s, the global prohibition of drugs

now fuels drug market violence around the world. For instance, it is estimated that more than 50,000

individuals have been killed since a 2006 military escalation against drug cartels by Mexican government

forces. While supporters of aggressive drug law enforcement strategies might assume that this degree of

bloodshed would disrupt the drug market‟s ability to produce and distribute illegal drugs, recent estimates

suggest that Mexican heroin production has increased by more than 340 per cent since 2004.” (The War on

Drugs and HIV/AIDS How the Criminalization of Drug Use Fuels the Global Pandemic, 2012 )

Drug deals are not inherently violent. Multi-billion dollar corporations sell drugs throughout the world

every year without a single homicide on their hands. The only way to get rid of this violence is to let legal drug

dealers take the reins. After the U.S. prohibition of alcohol ended, control of the sale of alcohol was transferred from

underground syndicates to legal entities. The violence connected with the industry disappeared overnight. While

gangs and cartels have other methods of making money, the illegal drug trade is, by far, the biggest contributor to

their obscene profits. Prohibition allowed these organizations to rise to power and its repeal is the only way they‟ll

disappear.

Drugs can be dangerous. No one can deny that. Fatal overdoses can occur from alcohol, aspirin, or heroin.

Not to mention the risk of addiction any happy-chemical-releasing activity poses or the physical dependence risk of

some recreational drugs.

Some have claimed drug use will rise if legalized. This is a possibility. In July of 2001, Portugal

decriminalized personal amounts of illegal psychoactive chemicals.

“…the statistical indicators and key informant interviews that we have reviewed suggest that since

decriminalization in July 2001, the following changes have occurred:

small increases in reported illicit drug use amongst adults;

reduced illicit drug use among problematic drug users and adolescents, at least since

2003;



Forster 3

reduced burden of drug offenders on the criminal justice system;

increased uptake of drug treatment;

reduction in opiate-related deaths and infectious diseases;

increases in the amounts of drugs seized by the authorities;

reductions in the retail prices of drugs.” (Hughes and Stevens, 2010)

Although drug use rose slightly, nearly every danger associated with drugs was eased. Portugal‟s decriminalization

reinforces the fact that the harms caused by prohibition greatly outweigh any harm caused by psychoactive

chemicals themselves.

Much of what makes drugs dangerous is what we don‟t know is in them. Adulterants are often added to

stretch out a product‟s worth or to masquerade as potency. Even worse than adulterants, drugs ar e increasingly

misrepresented; quasi-legal related substances — mostly brand new and untested--offer drug dealers a cheap

replacement to further profit margins. Without any sort of regulation regarding labels, production, or sale, end users

are left to fend for themselves in a cruel black market. A future without prohibition would allow this regulation —

doing away with any harm caused by bad quality or misrepresented drugs.

There are an estimated one million billion billion billion billion billion billion undiscovered drugs.

(American Chemical Society, 2012) Huge corporations are constantly researching these new drugs to discover the

next aspirin, but the world of recreational drug research is underground and frail at best. Most of this research at the

moment is clandestine and oriented to create designer drugs with similar effects to popular recreational drugs, but no

legal repercussions. These small molecules are tested for enjoyability and rarely much else. Legal alternatives have

been popular with charlatan distributors to increase profits, explorers for a new experience, and anyone without

access to quality illegal drugs. Many of these substances were discovered in the last few years —pretending they‟re

safe for ingestion with the sliver of information we have about them is irresponsible. As long as prohibition is

around, this market for untested legal alternatives will remain lucrative and dangerous. Research into safer drugs is

hampered by legislation. A very difficult to attain license can be applied for for research (since that would require

possessing illegal chemicals), but few of these are issued. Heroin (a brand name) was originally — somehow —

marketed as a less addictive morphine. This demonstrates the competence at the time in this field. We have come a

long way since then, although not far considering recreational drugs. Much safer recreational drugs could easily be

made by the gold-backed corporations synthesizing our legal happy pills. The point has also been made that opening

this research up by ending prohibition could allow more addictive drugs to be made and distributed. While I believe

this to be a valid concern, I do not believe it to be a valid business strategy. These manufacturers, in a world with

drugs, would be in the public eye. New drugs would only be released after extensive testing and FDA approval

(which, by the way, Methamphetamine Hydrochloride currently has in the U.S. to treat ADHD or obesity). If a

consumer has the option to buy two drugs: both with similar effects, but one may cause physical dependence--it

shouldn‟t be a hard choice. The civic ignorance of today‟s climate is dif ficult to ignore; we have been discouraging



Forster 4

research into safer recreational alternatives, forcing us to use the same relatively safe but still dangerous drugs our

grandparents used or the shiny new exciting ones we know nothing about.

Drug abuse is a health concern; not a legal concern. Prohibition makes it a legal concern and exacerbates

health concerns. Sweeping this problem under the rug is easy for society, but that forces addicts to deal with their

own problems. One of the more pressing issues this raises is the spread of HIV/AIDS. Many drugs can be

recreationally administered by needle, but when aggressive measures are taken against the use of needles to try to

curb use, “fear of recrimination prevents drug users from seeking clean needles— a major risk factor for HIV

infection.” (Szalavitz)

“In Portugal in 2001, the government decriminalized the use and possession of a modest quantity

of illegal drugs for personal use, so as to focus on drug addiction as a public health issue. As a result,

between 2000 and 2008, the number of new cases of HIV decreased from 907 to 267, while the number of

cases of AIDS dropped from 506 to 108 among people there who inject drugs.” (The War on Drugs and

HIV/AIDS How the Criminalization of Drug Use Fuels the Global Pandemic, 2012)

The most effective, and therefore civically intelligent, approach to alleviating these harms is to rid drug use of its

criminality. This would eliminate any fear of legal repercussions and allow users to seek information and assistance

they require.

Our children are the future; raising them to the best of our abilities is paramount to a society‟s civic

intelligence. Is prohibition beneficial to the safe maturation of our offspring?

Children of today have easy access to illegal drugs (not to mention temptation from the illegal part).

Unprincipled distributors will sell to any minor with dollar in hand--regardless of age. In a black market, there is no

opportunity for regulation; sellers cannot be held accountable for their actions. A legalized and regulated market

could be compared to modern alcohol regulation. Licensed distributors would be at significant legal risk if they sold

psychoactive chemicals to minors and would have the privilege to sell revoked. It would suddenly require much

more than money to acquire drugs. Even when youth bypass restrictions and receive drugs in this regulated future,

the substances they consume will be much safer than black market drugs.

Illegal drugs today are expensive. This, as previously stated, is solely because of the black market and

would change in government-sanctioned stores. It has been shown that increases in price of legal drugs such as

alcohol and tobacco decrease use among minors. Some claim prohibition is necessary to keep drugs expensive,

therefore away from children. They forget that currency isn‟t the only expense and time and effort required to

bypass regulated sales are factors in availability as well. I believe the numbers that would translate best to a world

without prohibition are from Portugal‟s decriminalization where, even though drug prices are down, youth drug use



Forster 5

is as well. Drugs of the future may have less of an impact on a youth‟s wallet, but wealth won‟t be the only limiting

factor in their pursuit of non-sobriety.

The United States spends approximately “$41.3 billion” annually fighting the war on drugs (Miron andWaldock, 2010). The goal of this spending is to reduce drug use — a goal far out of sight. Not only are we needlessly

spending this money, but the government is also losing “$46.7 billion” a year in drug tax opportunity cost to

underground organizations. Altogether, legalization and regulation would save the government an estimated $88

billion annually. (Miron and Waldock, 2010)

The prison industry flourishes during prohibition.

“Over the first 70 years of the twentieth century the US incarceration rate was characterized by a relative

stability, with approximately 100 per 100,000 citizens suffering imprisonment at a given moment. The

following 35 year period has seen a steep rise in this rate, with the figure reaching 491 per 100,000 in 2005.

(US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005). More recent data suggests that this has risen

still further since then (See table.) This rise has been largely fuelled by policies associated with the “war

on drugs”, and has been particularly acute since the early 1980s, when concern about cocaine became

prominent. Figures show that drug arrests have more than tripled in the last 25 years, reaching a record of

some 1.8 million in 2005 (Mauer & King 2007); in 1980 there were 581,000 drug law arrests, climbing to a

total of 1,846,351 in 2005. 81.7% of these arrests were for possession offences, and 42.6% of arrests were

for marijuana offences. Of the 450,000 increase in drug arrests during the period 1990-2002, 82% of thegrowth was for marijuana, with 79% for marijuana possession alone (Boyum & Reuter, 2005). These

figures reflect the shifting law enforcement emphasis towards the drug since the early 1990s. The upward

trend in arrest rates has been accompanied by a greater increase in the number of drug offence related

commitments to state and federal prison. These rose approximately ten-fold between 1980 and 2000

(Boyum & Reuter, 2005). This upward trend can be explained in large part by mandatory sentencing

statutes. These were the product of a stepping up of the „war on drugs‟ during the Reagan presidency.”

(Bewey-Taylor, Hallam, and Allen, 2010)

Punitive measures have been heavily utilized in the United States to fight the war on drugs. We have, as a result,

succeeded in usurping the throne for top incarceration rates (woohoo!) without even slightly diminishing drug use.

Our efforts have been clearly fruitless, yet we soldier on. It has become clear at this point that arresting more people

is unlikely to help any perceived dangers. A world without prohibition would be a clear improvement in the civic

intelligence of incarceration. The prison population would decrease and, most likely, return to the reasonable rates of

before. There aren‟t more dangerous people around today than before prohibition--we simply decided more of our

citizens are dangerous.



Forster 6

Evolution has ensured we fear “them.” It has always been the safest bet in regards to our safety. We can

now override instinctual fears such as this, but they‟ve been deeply ingrained. At the moder n level of society,

“them” is usually racial minorities. Although racism has become highly uncouth, it continues to pervade our society.

“…current US drug policies, not just those relating to crack, do have a disproportionate impact on minority

groups. Western and Wildeman (2009) calculate that if white males were incarcerated at an equivalent rate

as their black counterparts, there would be over 6 million people in America‟s prisons and jails, and 5% of

the working age male population would be locked up. This is particularly so for low-income African-

Americans, and those with low levels of educational attainment. The result, as noted above, is high levels

of incarceration among such groups. This reality has a negative impact upon wider race-class relations

within the US (Currie, 1994) and as such must be seen as a considerable though immeasurable collateral

cost.” (Bewey-Taylor, Hallam, and Allen, 2010)

Prohibition is serving to further segregate our society. Incarceration brings along myriad problems for, not only

those involved, but everyone around them as well.

“A 2002 study in New York revealed that since 1980 an estimated 124,000 children in that state have had

at least one parent imprisoned on a drug charge. Data from a 1997 survey produced estimates showing that

58% of those in New York‟s prisons were parents of children under the age of eighteen, with a higher

number of women (64%) reporting children than men (58%) (Human Rights Watch, 2002.) Such a situation

may contribute to criminality and problematic drug use among children who are forced to live with

relatives, foster parents or in official institutions. It can also generate social security costs due to the

removal of a family breadwinner and the costs associated with foster care for children. Further social

security costs may be generated if an ex-prisoner cannot find employment due to the stigma of a prison

record, in addition to the lost earnings and taxes that ensue.” (Bewey-Taylor, Hallam, and Allen, 2010)

This vicious cycle is serving to maintain a segment of minorities as second class citizens. Equality in this concern

will never be reached during prohibition. The cycle will continue, more humans will be imprisoned, and more

neglected — pushed toward the artificial happiness of drugs (the only way out that can be found) to be the next

inmate; a little silly given the affectivity of incarceration. While private prisons adore this model, it is far from

civically intelligent.

Our world has drugs; prohibition or not. Over the last 40 years, we have rediscovered the failures of

prohibitory laws. While they originally seem to be a civically intelligent strategy to minimizing societal harm, they

have been shown to accomplish no goals at the cost of human lives and more. Pointless deaths, such as those of

prohibition, are the pinnacle of civic ignorance. A world in which the prohibition of psychoactive chemicals has

been eliminated seems to clearly be an improvement over today‟s wasted resources and lives.



Forster 7

Works Cited

American Chemical Society. "One Million Billion Billion Billion Billion Billion Billion: The Number of New Drugs

Awaiting Discovery." American Chemical Society - The World's Largest Scientific Society. American Chemical

Society, 6 June 2012. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.

Bewley-Taylor, Dave, Chris Hallam, and Rob Allen. THE INCARCERATION OF DRUG OFFENDERS: An Overview . Rep.

no. Sixteen. The Beckley Foundation, Mar. 2009. Web. 13 Feb. 2013.

Hughes, Caitlin E., and Alex Stevens. "WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION

OF ILLICIT DRUGS?" British Journal of Criminology 50 (2010): 999-1022. The Beckley Foundation. The Beckley

Foundation, 1 Dec. 2010. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.

Miron, Jeffrey A., and Katherine Waldock. "Making an Economic Case for Legalizing Drugs." The Philadelphia Inquirer 3

Oct. 2010: n. pag. Cato Institute. Cato Institute. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.

Szalavitz, Maia. "How the Global War on Drugs Drives HIV and AIDS." Time. Time, 28 June 2012. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.

The War on Drugs and HIV/AIDS How the Criminalization of Drug Use Fuels the Global Pandemic . Rep. Global

Commission on Drug Policy, June 2012. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.

a world with drugs

Documents