NO: Decriminalization of Drug Possession

Joseph A. Califano, Jr., LL.B.

(Joseph A. Califano, Jr., LL.B., is president of The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse

at Columbia University (CASA). He has served as U.S. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare.)

The objective of a drug-free America, brushed aside by advocates of legalization, is a statement of

hope that a generation of children can come of age largely free of the life-destroying effects of

illegal drugs. Drugs like marijuana, heroin and cocaine are not dangerous because they are illegal;

they are illegal because they are dangerous. If drugs were legalized, it is the nation's children who

could suffer long-lasting, perhaps permanent damage.

The boomlet to legalize drugs like heroin, cocaine and marijuana is founded in myths, not realities.

Here are some of those myths:

Myth 1: There's been no progress in the war on drugs.

The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse reports that current drug use in America has fallen by

half in the last fifteen years, demonstrating that there has been progress in the war on drugs.

Myth 2: Whether to use drugs and become hooked is an adult decision.

Hardly anyone in America begins drug use after age 21. An individual who does not smoke, use drugs

or abuse alcohol by 21 is virtually certain never to do so. That's why the nicotine pushers fight so

strenuously to kill efforts to keep their stuff away from kids.

Myth 3: Legalized drugs would be available for adults and not to children.

Nothing in the American experience gives any credence to our ability to keep legal drugs from

children. It's illegal for children to purchase cigarettes and alcohol and yet three million adolescents

smoke, constituting a $1-billion-a-year market, and twelve million underage Americans drink, a $10-

billion-a-year market.

Myth 4: Greater availability and legal acceptability of drugs would not increase use.

This defies human nature. In the 1970s we de facto decriminalized marijuana. The result? A soaring

increase in marijuana use, particularly among youngsters. Today, we have 50 million nicotine addicts,

18 million alcoholics and alcohol abusers, and 6 million drug addicts. It is logical to conclude that, if

drugs are easier to obtain, less expensive, and socially acceptable, more individuals will use them.

With legalization, experts believe the number of cocaine addicts alone could jump beyond the

number of alcoholics.

Myth 5: Marijuana is a benign drug. Marijuana is particularly harmful to children and young teens.

It can impair short-term memory and ability to maintain attention span; it inhibits intellectual, social

and emotional development, just when young people are learning in school. CASA's study shows a

powerful statistical correlation between using marijuana and use of other drugs such as heroin and

cocaine. Recent neuroscientific studies give clues to why this strong statistical link exists. They indicate

that marijuana, cocaine, nicotine, alcohol and heroin all affect dopamine levels through common

pathways in the brain. Another study demonstrates that cessation of marijuana use brings on

withdrawal symptoms, which may encourage a user to try drugs such as cocaine or heroin.

Today, most kids don't use illicit drugs, but all of them, particularly the poorest, are vulnerable to

abuse and addiction. Russian roulette is not a game anyone should play. Legalizing drugs not only is

playing Russian roulette with children, it is slipping a couple of extra bullets into the chamber.

Decriminalization would increase the use and the economic and social costs of drugs.

BY DAVID MINETA

FROM ISSUE: EDUCATION, FALL 2010

The argument that drug decriminalization, or legalization, will solve the budget crisis, reduce prison

overcrowding and cripple drug cartels is simply not supported by evidence. In fact, the benefits of

keeping marijuana and other illicit drugs illegal clearly outweigh the negative and predictable

consequences of legitimizing these substances.

There are academic distinctions between decriminalization and legalization. In the United States

experience, decriminalization arguments are typically employed as a rhetorical and political tool,

often explicitly, by advocates attempting to pry open the door to full legalization. Our position is

simple and evidence-based: both decriminalization and legalization of illicit drugs would increase

their use, along with their associated health and social costs. Unless advocates of decriminalization or

of outright legalization can establish that more drug use is a net good for society, both arguments are

self-refuting.

The Barack Obama Administration has made crucial changes in U.S. drug policies, but they reflect

the realities of science and experience. They reflect what has worked in the past and what we need

to improve. We recognize that drug addiction is a diseaseone that we must strive to eradicate

through prevention, evidence-based interventions and comprehensive treatment.

Criminal sanctions against drugs are not a purely punitive tool. Penalties, or even the threat of them,

frequently spur individuals struggling with addiction or substance abuse to get the treatment they

might never seek or receive on their own. In fact, more than one-third of all treatment referrals in the

U.S. are currently from the criminal justice system. Our support for drug courts, Drug Market Initiatives

and criminal justice innovations that rely on swift but moderate sanctions reflect the invaluable and

multifaceted role the criminal justice system plays in addressing drug use and its consequences.

Our drug policy addresses both the public health and public safety aspects of drug use through

expanded support for drug prevention and treatment. It has already reduced the mandatory

minimum sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocainean historic first-time reduction

of mandatory minimum sentencing signed into law by President Obama in July. It supports efforts to

help the millions of Americans in recovery. These are policies guided by what we know; they make

more sense than making changes based on the dubious proposition that decriminalization or

legalization can sweep away the myriad problems associated with drug use.

Our long experience with two legal substances, alcohol and tobacco, demonstrates that legalization

increases societys acceptance, availability, use, and associated costs. Alcohol and tobacco cause

hundreds of thousands more deaths per year than all illegal drugs combined, in part because their

use is more widespread. Alcohol and tobacco are currently used by 51.6 percent and 28.4 percent,

respectively, of the population aged 12 and older; while use of marijuana, the most popular illicit

drug, hovers around six percent. Marijuana today is less accepted and less widely used among youth

than alcohol or tobaccoin no small part because it is illegal.1

Another factor discouraging more widespread use of illegal drugs is their relatively high cost.

According to multiple economic analyses, current marijuana prohibitions raise the cost of its

production by at least 400 percent; the resulting higher prices help hold down rates of usage.

Consumption patterns for marijuana, cigarettes and alcohol are known to be sensitive to changes in

price, especially among young people. Rigorous independent research has shown that even small

price changes affect marijuana consumption rates, consistent with what we know about cigarettes,

where research has shown that a 10 percent drop in price yields a 7 to 8 percent increase in

demand.

Legal drugs are cheap and easy to obtain. High profits make the addiction business lucrative.

Consider the Dutch experiment with commercialized marijuana: after coffee shops were widely

promoted in the Netherlands, the rate of regular marijuana use among 18-to-20-year-olds more than

doubled.3 Because of crime, drug tourism and public nuisance problems, the Dutch have severely

restricted the number of coffee shops where marijuana is sold commercially.

The U.S. does not need another vice industry dedicated to promoting and supporting addiction.

Think about the tobacco industry, dominated by lobbyists, glorified by advertisements, promoted by

global marketing designed to skirt domestic regulation, and defended by scientific institutes

determined to present the drug in the softest possible light. Do we want the same for marijuana and

cocaine?

Why not legalize and tax drugs to gain much-needed revenue? Our experience with alcohol and

tobacco shows that tax revenue from these substances does not even begin to cover the costs

associated with them. Federal excise taxes collected on alcohol in 2002 totaled $8.3 billion, which is

only 4.5 percent of the $184 billion in alcohol-related costs, such as lost productivity and increased

health care spending.

With tobacco, we spend more than $200 billion annually on social costs, but collect only about $25

billion in taxes. Illegal drugs represented about $181 billion in social costs in 2002a figure that would

increase, because of increased use, under legalization.

A central tenet of legalization is that it would eliminate underground drug markets, since drugs would

be available openly. But there is no reason to believe legalization would bring about this result.

Instead, government would have to regulate a new, legal market while continuing to pay for the

negative effects of an underground market whose suppliers have little economic incentive to

disappear. When the Canadians instituted a cigarette tax creating a mere $2-per-pack differential

versus the U.S. price, it created such a huge smuggling problem that Canada was forced to repeal

the tax increase.5

The enthusiasm of advocates for decriminalized and regulated drugs should be tempered by our

experience with prescription drugs like OxyContin and other analgesic opioids. These are legal,

highly regulated drugs, dispensed under supervision; yet unintentional U.S. drug overdose death rates

have increased roughly five-fold between 1990 and 2006, due primarily to deaths attributed to

narcotic pain relievers.

The idea that legalizing drugs will lessen drug abuse contradicts research showing that

misperceptions of prescription drugs as less harmful actually contribute to their abuse.6

Legalization proponents argue that the criminal justice system costs associated with prohibition

unduly burden taxpayers. There are certainly criminal-justice costs to maintaining current

prohibitions, but legalizing drugs would not eliminate them. Alcohol-related arrests, in the form of

liquor law violations, public drunkenness and driving under the influence, totaled nearly 2.7 million in

2009. All illegal drug-related arrests in 2009 totaled almost 1.6 million. With the increased use that

legalization would bring, it is not hard to forecast related increases in arrests and other drug-related

criminal justice costs.

Instead of promoting risky drug policies grounded in speculation rather than science, we should

pursue our current course of a coordinated, balanced strategy including prevention, treatment,

enforcement, and international cooperation.

SHOULD DRUGS BE DECRIMINALIZED? NO.

NOVEMBER 09, 2007

By Joseph A. Califano, Jr.

Drug misuse (usually called abuse in the U.S.) infects the world's criminal justice, health care and

social service systems. Although bans on the import, manufacture, sale and possession of drugs such

as marijuana, cocaine and heroin should remain, drug policies do need a fix. Neither legalization nor

decriminalization is the answer. Rather, more resources and energy should be devoted to research,

prevention and treatment, and each citizen and institution should take responsibility to combat all

substance misuse and addiction.

Vigorous and intelligent enforcement of criminal law makes drugs harder to get and more expensive.

Sensible use of courts, punishment and prisons can encourage misusers to enter treatment and thus

reduce crime. Why not treat a teenager arrested for marijuana use in the same way that the U.S.

treats someone arrested for drunk-driving when no injury occurs? See the arrest as an opportunity

and require the teenager to be screened, have any needed treatment, and attend sessions to learn

about the dangers of marijuana use.

The medical profession and the public health community should educate society that addiction is a

complex physical, psychological, emotional and spiritual disease, not a moral failing or easily

abandoned act of self-indulgence. Children should receive education and prevention programs that

take into account cultural and sex differences and are relevant to their age. We should make

effective treatment available to all who need it and establish high standards of training for treatment

providers. Social service programs, such as those to help abused children and homeless people,

should confront the drug and alcohol misuse and addiction commonly involved, rather than ignore

or hide it because of the associated stigma.

AVAILABILITY IS THE MOTHER OF USE

What we don't need is legalization or decriminalization, which will make illegal drugs cheaper, easier

to obtain and more acceptable to use. The U.S. has some 60 million smokers, up to 20 million

alcoholics and alcohol misusers, but only around 6 million illegal drug addicts. If illegal drugs were

easier to obtain, this figure would rise.

Switzerland's "needle park," touted as a way to restrict a few hundred heroin users to a small area,

turned into a grotesque tourist attraction of 20,000 addicts and had to be closed before it infected

the entire city of Zurich. Italy, where personal possession of a few doses of drugs like heroin has

generally been exempt from criminal sanction, has one of the highest rates of heroin addiction in

Europe, with more than 60% of AIDS cases there attributable to intravenous drug use.

Most legalization advocates say they would legalize drugs only for adults. Our experience with

tobacco and alcohol shows that keeping drugs legal "for adults only" is an impossible dream.

Teenage smoking and drinking are widespread in the U.S., United Kingdom and Europe.

The Netherlands established "coffee shops," where customers could select types of marijuana just as

they might choose ice cream flavors. Between 1984 and 1992, adolescent use nearly tripled.

Responding to international pressure and the outcry from its own citizens, the Dutch government

reduced the number of marijuana shops and the amount that could be sold and raised the age for

admission from 16 to 18. In 2007, the Dutch government announced plans to ban the sale of

hallucinogenic mushrooms.

RESTRICTION

Recent events in Britain highlight the importance of curbing availability. In 2005, the government

extended the hours of operation for pubs, with some allowed to serve 24 hours a day. Rather than

curbing binge drinking, the result has been a sharp increase in crime between 3 am and 6 am, in

violent crimes in certain pubs and in emergency treatment for alcohol misusers.

Sweden offers an example of a successful restrictive drug policy. Faced with rising drug use in the

1990s, the government tightened drug control, stepped up police action, mounted a national action

plan and created a national drug coordinator. The result: "Drug use is just a third of the European

average."

Almost daily we learn more about marijuana's addictive and dangerous characteristics. Today's

teenagers' pot is far more potent than their parents' pot. The average amount of

tetrahydrocannabinol, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, in seized samples in the U.S. has

more than doubled since 1983. Antonio Maria Costa, Director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime

(UNODC), has warned, "Today, the harmful characteristics of cannabis are no longer that different

from those of other plant-based drugs such as cocaine and heroin."

Evidence that cannabis use can cause serious mental illness is mounting. A study published in the

Lancet "found a consistent increase in incidence of psychosis outcomes in people who had used

cannabis." The study prompted the journal's editors to retract their 1995 statement that, "smoking of

cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health."

Drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal; they are illegal because they are dangerous. A

child who reaches age 21 without smoking, misusing alcohol, or using illegal drugs is virtually certain

to never do so. Today, most children don't use illicit drugs, but all of them, particularly the poorest, are

vulnerable to misuse and addiction. Legalization and decriminalizationpolicies certain to increase

illegal drug availability and use among our childrenhardly qualify as public health approaches.

Why We Should Not Legalize Marijuana

Tuesday, 20 Apr 2010 | 12:02 AM ET

Contrary to the beliefs of those who advocate the legalization of marijuana, the current balanced,

restrictive, and bipartisan drug policies of the United States are working reasonably well and they

have contributed to reductions in the rate of marijuana use in our nation.

The rate of current, past 30-day use of marijuana by Americans aged 12 and older in 1979 was 13.2

percent. In 2008 that figure stood at 6.1 percent. This 54-percent reduction in marijuana use over that

29-year period is a major public health triumph, not a failure.

Marijuana is the most commonly abused illegal drug in the U.S. and around the world. Those who

support its legalization, for medical or for general use, fail to recognize that the greatest costs of

marijuana are not related to its prohibition; they are the costs resulting from marijuana use itself.

There is a common misconception that the principle costs of marijuana use are those related to the

criminal justice system. This is a false premise. Caulkins & Sevigny (2005) found that the percentage of

people in prison for marijuana use is less than one half of one percent (0.1-0.2 percent).

An encounter with the criminal justice system through apprehension for a drug-related crime

frequently can benefit the offender because the criminal justice system is often a path to treatment.

More than a third, 37 percent, of treatment admissions reported in the Treatment Episode Data Set,

TEDS, collected from state-funded programs were referred through the criminal justice system.

Marijuana was an identified drug of abuse for 57 percent of the individuals referred to treatment from

the criminal justice system. The future of drug policy is not a choice between using the criminal justice

system or treatment. The more appropriate goal is to get these two systems to work together more

effectively to improve both public safety and public health.

In the discussion of legalizing marijuana, a useful analogy can be made to gambling. MacCoun &

Reuter (2001) conclude that making the government a beneficiary of legal gambling has

encouraged the government to promote gambling, overlooking it as a problem behavior. They point

out that the moral debasement of state government is a phenomenon that only a few academics

and preachers bemoan.

Legalized gambling has not reduced illegal gambling in the United States; rather, it has increased it.

This is particularly evident in sports gambling, most of which is illegal. Legal gambling is taxed and

regulated and illegal gambling is not. Legal gambling sets the stage for illegal gambling just the way

legal marijuana would set the stage for illegal marijuana trafficking.

The gambling precedent suggests strongly that illegal drug suppliers would thrive by selling more

potent marijuana products outside of the legal channels that would be taxed and otherwise

restricted. If marijuana were legalized, the only way to eliminate its illegal trade, which is modest in

comparison to that of cocaine, would be to sell marijuana untaxed and unregulated to any willing

buyer.

Marijuana is currently the leading cause of substance dependence other than alcohol in the U.S. In

2008, marijuana use accounted for 4.2 million of the 7 million people aged 12 or older classified with

dependence on or abuse of an illicit drug. This means that about two thirds of Americans suffering

from any substance use disorder are suffering from marijuana abuse or marijuana dependence.

If the U.S. were to legalize marijuana, the number of marijuana users would increase. Today there are

15.2 million current marijuana users in comparison to 129 million alcohol users and 70.9 million

tobacco users. Though the number of marijuana users might not quickly climb to the current numbers

for alcohol and tobacco, if marijuana was legalized, the increase in users would be both large and

rapid with subsequent increases in addiction.

Important lessons can be learned from those two widely-used legal drugs. While both alcohol and

tobacco are taxed and regulated, the tax benefits to the public are vastly overshadowed by the

adverse consequences of their use.

Alcohol-related costs total over $185 billion while federal and states collected an estimated $14.5

billion in tax revenue; similarly, tobacco use costs over $200 billion but only $25 billion is collected in

taxes. These figures show that the costs of legal alcohol are more than 12 times the total tax revenue

collected, and that the costs of legal tobacco are about 8 times the tax revenue collected. This is an

economically disastrous tradeoff.

The costs of legalizing marijuana would not only be financial. New marijuana users would not be

limited to adults if marijuana were legalized, just as regulations on alcohol and tobacco do not

prevent use by youth. Rapidly accumulating new research shows that marijuana use is associated

with increases in a range of serious mental and physical problems. Lack of public understanding on

this relationship is undermining prevention efforts and adversely affecting the nations youth and their

families.

Drug-impaired driving will also increase if marijuana is legalized. Marijuana is already a significant

causal factor in highway crashes, injuries and deaths. In a recent national roadside survey of

weekend nighttime drivers, 8.6 percent tested positive for marijuana or its metabolites, nearly four

times the percentage of drivers with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 g/dL (2.2 percent).

In another study of seriously injured drivers admitted to a Level-1 shock trauma center, more than a

quarter of all drivers (26.9 percent) tested positive for marijuana. In a study of fatally injured drivers in

Washington State, 12.7 percent tested positive for marijuana. These studies demonstrate the high

prevalence of drugged driving as a result of marijuana use.

Many people who want to legalize marijuana are passionate about their perception of the alleged

failures of policies aimed at reducing marijuana use but those legalization proponents seldomif

everdescribe their own plan for taxing and regulating marijuana as a legal drug. There is a reason

for this imbalance; they cannot come up with a credible plan for legalization that could deliver on

their exaggerated claims for this new policy.

Future drug policies must be smarter and more effective in curbing the demand for illegal drugs

including marijuana. Smarter-drug prevention policies should start by reducing illegal drug use

among the 5 million criminal offenders who are on parole and probation in the U.S. They are among

the nations heaviest and most problem-generating illegal drug users.

Monitoring programs that are linked to swift and certain, but not severe, consequences for any drug

use have demonstrated outstanding results including lower recidivism and lower rates of

incarceration. New policies to curb drugged driving will not only make our roads and highways safer

and provide an important new path to treatment, but they will also reduce illegal drug use.

Reducing marijuana use is essential to improving the nations health, education, and productivity.

New policies can greatly improve current performance of prevention strategies which, far from

failing, has protected millions of people from the many adverse effects of marijuana use.

Since legalization of marijuana for medical or general use would increase marijuana use rather than

reduce it and would lead to increased rates of addiction to marijuana among youth and adults,

legalizing marijuana is not a smart public health or public safety strategy for any state or for our

nation.

Dont Decriminalize Marijuana

BY BARRETT DUKE

OCT 27, 2006

Barrett Duke has served in the ERLCs Washington office as Vice President for Public Policy and

Research since 2003. He came to the ERLCs Nashville office in 1997 after serving as founding pastor

of a church in Colorado. Barrett holds a BA from Criswell College, an MA from Denver Seminary, and

a PhD from the Iliff School of Theology and the University of Denver.

Weve come to voting season again, and as usual were being asked to consider many proposals.

Some of these proposals are well-meaning, sensible plans to improve the lives of citizens. Others are

misguided, irresponsible policy issues that will devastate and even destroy the lives of many millions of

our fellow citizens. A perfect example of a misguided ballot issue is the proposal in some states to

decriminalize possession of up to an ounce of marijuana. Nevada is even being asked to authorize

government-regulated sales of marijuana.

Decriminalizing marijuana possession is a bad idea. I used drugs for the first time when I was 14 years

old. I still remember that day. It was a day that changed my life, but it wasnt a change for the

better. After my first introduction to drugs, I spent the next seven years of my life in a drug-induced

stupor. By the time I was 21, I had no interests except to find ways to get high. Drugs dominated my

life and the decisions I made.

The first drug I used was hashish, essentially a concentrated form of marijuana, but marijuana was the

mainstay of my drug use because it was relatively inexpensive and readily available. Marijuana is the

drug that kept me high between the availability of other drugs. As a longtime user of the drug, I can

attest to its completely destructive force. A person who is high on marijuana has no interest in doing

anything. The debilitating effects of marijuana are more severe than those of alcohol.

Anyone who believes that decriminalizing marijuana possession will help control our nations drug

crisis is completely out of touch with the reality of the problem. Decriminalization will make matters

worse for a number of reasons.

First, decriminalizing marijuana possession will enable users to spend more time being high. When

people can walk the streets with it in their pockets without fear of arrest, they will have it more often

and use it more often. It is hardly an encouraging prospect to think that marijuana users will be high

more often. Such a disastrous outcome will put even more pressure on our families, communities,

businesses, health services, and law enforcement officials.

Second, decriminalizing marijuana possession will increase the likelihood that more people,

especially impressionable, curious young people, will try the drug. When government declares that

something is no longer illegal, many people drop their guard. They surmise that if the government

isnt worried about it, it must not be very dangerous. Many of these people will begin a downward

spiral that will only end when they hit bottom, with their lives and maybe their futures shattered.

Equally troubling is the prospect that more young people will start out on the road to a lifetime of

drug addiction. It is a scientific fact that the younger a person is when he starts to use illicit drugs, the

greater the likelihood that he will develop drug dependency. We have enough young people living

that reality already. We certainly do not need to increase their numbers.

Third, decriminalizing marijuana possession will not rid us of the illicit drug trade. The only thing

decriminalization will do is create more customers for the illicit drug trade. People who use marijuana

will be more inclined to want to try other drugs. They will know what it is like to get high, and they will

want to experiment with other drugs to see how they affect them. This was certainly true for me. In

addition, those who claim that regulating the sale of marijuana will undercut the illicit trade in the

drug do not fully understand the issue. While commercialization may reduce the cost of marijuana,

the illicit drug trade will still be able to undersell the legal market, though the profit margin might be

reduced. It is even possible, maybe probable, that the legal drug will be more expensive than the

current price of the illegal drug once the grower, the middleman, the shipper, the retailer, and the

taxing authorities add their various charges. It is also likely that people will be attracted to the illicit

trade in marijuana if the illicit marijuana being offered is of higher potency. Finally, there will always

be people who will not want it known that they use marijuana. They are going to buy it illegally in

order to hide their use from public knowledge. This will be especially true for teenagers. Not only will

they want to hide their use from their parents knowledge, they will still not be able to purchase the

drug legally, so they will turn to illicit sources.

Fourth, decriminalizing marijuana possession will lead to an increase in the availability of other drugs.

As the demand for other drugs increases, the supply of those drugs will also increase. In other words,

decriminalization will not reduce the current drug problem afflicting our nation; it will increase it.

When has demand for something ever not been met? People find a way to get what they want, and

as long as there is an easy profit in it, there will always be someone willing to supply them.

Fifth, decriminalizing marijuana possession will not empty our prisons of drug offenders. Today, very

few people go to prison for possessing small amounts of marijuana. While some people have ended

up in prison for possession of marijuana, the majority of people who go to prison these days for drug

offenses are there because of other crimes they committed. They may have had marijuana in their

possession at the time of their arrest, but their sentencing was related to more serious offenses, like

intent to sell drugs, or robbery, or violent crimes. Rather than reducing the prison population, it is likely

that decriminalization of marijuana possession will result in more people going to prison for drug-

related crimes. As the drug-abusing population increases due to the relaxed attitude about

marijuana, more people will end up with drug addictions, and many of these people will turn to

crime to support their habits or engage in other illegal behaviors that mandate prison time.

According to a 1997 U.S. Department of Justice survey, 33 percent of state prisoners and 22 percent

of federal prisoners said they were high on drugs when they committed their offense. Marijuana is

often implicated in these crimes. The U.S. Department of Justice also reports that more inmates in

federal and state corrections facilities who were high when they committed their crimes were high on

marijuana or cocaine at the time of their offense. It is better to leave it in the hands of prosecutors

and judges to determine whether or not a person should go to jail for marijuana possession than to

decriminalize marijuana possession and produce more addicted drug-users, many of whom will find

themselves facing jail time for their drug-related crimes.

Decriminalization of marijuana possession is just a bad idea. No one wins. Our young people will not

be helped. Businesses will not be helped. Families will suffer even more. Some things are just wrong,

and no amount of justification can make them right. This is one of those things. Some argue that

efforts to reduce drug use in this country have failed to make significant progress in recent years. This

is true; the statistics have not changed very much. However, I cannot help but wonder if the reason

for this is not the ineffectiveness of our drug control policy but rather the fact that 12 states have

already decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana. Such counterproductive policies

are bound to short-circuit our efforts to reduce the drug problem in this country. They are essentially

the equivalent of drilling holes in the bottom of your boat while you are frantically trying to bail water.

Instead of making drug use easier, we should redouble our efforts to warn people of the dangers of

drug use, develop more effective rehabilitation programs for those who are convicted of drug

possession, and increase our prosecution of those who supply the drugs. We are in a battle for the

lives of millions of people. They deserve our best efforts, not our surrender.

Drug Legalization: Why It Wouldn't Work in the United States

By Edmund Hartnett, Deputy Chief and Executive Officer, Narcotics Division, New York City Police

Department, New York

The issue of drug legalization is a complex one. Most Americans do not favor it, yet there is a strong

and very vocal lobby in the United States that feels that legalization would be the proper course to

take. When this vocal minority raises the issue in any community, citizens look to the police chief to

speak to the issue. Police chief are encouraged to borrow from this article as they prepare their

speeches.

Proponents Arguments

Proponents of drug legalization believe that the current policies regarding drugs have been harmful

to individuals, families, and society as a whole. They strongly oppose current drug laws and policies

for a variety of reasons. Some see the laws as an impingement of individual freedoms. Some see

them as a colossal waste of government resources citing the opinion that the legalization of drugs

could produce millions in tax revenues while at the same time putting drug dealers out of business

and ensuring quality controls in the production of drugs. Some feel that legalization would reduce

overall crime. Some argue that the laws are a form of institutionalized racism designed to keep

minorities as a permanent disenfranchised underclass by keeping them in prison, addicted, or

completely dependent on government aid. Others take what they view as a humanitarian

approach, arguing that certain substances should be made legal for medicinal purposes. Some

have chosen to refer to the issue as harm reduction instead of drug legalization in an apparent effort

to soften the issue and give it a more humanitarian tone. Still others view the prohibition against drugs

as an inherently flawed and impossible strategy that has exacerbated crime and violence and has

contributed to a sense of despair and hopelessness for millions of Americans.

It is also interesting to note that the proponents of legalization include supporters from across the

political spectrum, from progressives on the far left to libertarians on the far right. Liberal Democratic

Congressman Charles Rangel is adamantly opposed to drug legalization, while conservative icon

and columnist William F. Buckley has long been a proponent of making drugs legal. Congressman

Rangel has referred to legalization as a very dangerous idea that should be put to rest once and

for all.1

Opponents to Legalization

Although it is clear the majority of U.S. citizens are in favor of keeping the use, sale, and possession of

drugs illegal, much of the writing from the anti- legalization viewpoint comes from law enforcement

and government officials. Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch once described drug legalization as

the equivalent of extinguishing a fire with napalm.2 Although many acknowledge that the so-

called war on drugs has had mixed success, they believe that the alternative would have

catastrophic effects on the nation. They believe that the legalization of drugs would increase use,

lead to more experimentation by youth, and exacerbate the existing deleterious effects that drugs

have on society. They are of the opinion that government subsidization of addicts would have

crippling effects on the economy. They also feel that legalization would help to create a large black

market for drugs. Antilegalization proponents also point out that drug dealers and hardcore addicts

would not suddenly become productive, law-abiding members of society. The antilegalization point

of view is that dealers will still be involved in crime and violence and that users will still need to support

themselves by engaging in criminal activity. Basically, they believe that the legalization of drugs

would lead to increases, not reductions, in crime because there would be more addicts and

because of the aforementioned black market. Also, opponents of legalization often cite statistics

that show that drug prevention initiatives, drug awareness curricula in schools, and drug treatment

programs are working. They point to the fact that there are fewer addicts today than there were 20

years ago.

Drugs and Crime

There are two schools of thought on the issue of drug legalization and crime. Do drugs cause crime?

Does drug use inevitably lead to crime? If drugs were made legal, would there be less crime? If the

government subsidized addicts, would they still engage in criminal conduct? What would happen to

drug dealers and drug gangs if drugs were legalized? Although the issue is complex, both groups

agree that drugs and crime are inexorably linked.

Many legalization supporters believe that property crime, particularly burglary, larceny from persons

(purse snatchers, chain snatchers, and pickpockets), auto theft, theft from autos, and shoplifting

would decrease by 40-50 percent if drugs were made legal. Similarly, many believe that the terms

drug-related murder and drive-by shooting would become outdated once drugs were legalized.

In their view, turf wars would be eliminated because there would no longer be a need to fight for

ones turf.

Additionally, there are those who point out that drug enforcement is a waste of valuable law

enforcement resources since statistically most drug users do not get caught. Thus, the deterrent

effect of criminalization is lost. Todd Brenner uses the example of marijuana arrests. In 1987

approximately 25 million people in the United States used marijuana, the most easily detectable

drug, yet only 378,000 arrests were made; roughly one arrest for every 63 users.3 His point is that the

public would be better served if the police targeted crimes in which they had a better success rate.

Also, legalization supporters believe that once drugs were legalized, the government could pay less

attention to drug-related crime and spend more time and money on treatment, rehabilitation,

education, and job training programs. Other benefits cited would be reduced prison populations,

more manageable caseloads for judges and attorneys, and better relations between the public and

the police.

Many believe that traditional organized crime would be seriously affected by legalization. Benjamin

and Miller write: The Mafia would not disappear, because organized crime would be able to survive

on other criminal activities, such as loan sharking, gambling, prostitution, and child pornography. But

drug legalization would remove the backbone of organized crimes profits, causing it to diminish in

importance.4

Opponents to legalization obviously do not see legalization as a panacea that will make crime go

away. They see a clear connection between drug use and crime and, perhaps more importantly,

between drug use and violence. Joseph Califano, the author and a member of President Johnsons

cabinet, stated: Drugs like marijuana and cocaine are not dangerous because they are illegal; they

are illegal because they are dangerous.5 The DEA reports that six times as many homicides are

committed by persons under the influence of drugs than those looking for money to buy drugs and

that most arrestees for violent crimes test positive for drugs at time of arrest.6 Speaking to a

Congressional subcommittee on drug policy in 1999, Donnie Marshall, then deputy administrator of

DEA, spoke of drug use, crime, and violence. He said that there is a misconception that most drug-

related crimes involve people who are looking for money to buy drugs. The fact is that most drug-

related crimes are committed by people whose brains have been messed up with mood-altering

drugs.7

Legalization opponents are convinced that the violence caused by drug use will not magically stop

because the drugs are legal. Legal PCP isnt going to make a person less violent than illegally

purchased PCP.8 Susan Neiberg Terkel echoes these sentiments by saying that legalizing drugs

cannot change human nature. It cannot improve the social conditions that compel people to

engage in crime, nor can it stop people from using drugs as an excuse to be violent.9 The belief is

that drugs, legal or not, often lead to violence. Erich Goode, a SUNY professor and a proponent of

harm reduction, writes: It is extremely unlikely that legalization will transform the violent nature of the

world of heavy, chronic drug abuse very much. That violence is a part of the way that frequent,

heavy drug users live their lives; it is systemic to their subculture.10

It is interesting to note that the federal approach to drugs and crime is not solely linked to arrest and

incarceration. In Congressional testimony in 1999, Barry McCaffrey, then-director of the U.S. Office of

National Drug Control Policy, stated: We cannot arrest our way out of our nations drug problem. We

need to break the cycle of addiction, crime, and prison through treatment and other diversion

programs. Breaking the cycle is not soft on drugs; it is smart on defeating drugs and crime.11

Public Health Concerns

Opponents of legalization seem to be just as committed as the prolegalization lobby. They believe

that the legalization of drugs would have devastating effects on public health, the economy, quality

of life, American culture, and society as a whole.

The advocacy group Drug Watch International points out that drugs are illegal because of their

intoxicating effect on the brain, damaging impact on the body, adverse impact on behavior, and

potential for abuse. Their use threatens the health, welfare, and safety of all people, of users and

nonusers alike.12 Legalization advocates contend that the same statement could be made about

alcohol.

William J. Bennett, former director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, responds to that

claim, arguing that legalized alcohol, which is responsible for some 100,000 deaths a year, is hardly

the model for drug policy. As Charles Krauthammer has pointed out, the question is not which is

worse, alcohol or drugs. The question is, can we accept both legalized alcohol and legalized drugs?

The answer is No.13 Morton M. Kondracke of the New Republic magazine discusses another

comparison between drugs and alcohol: Of the 115 million Americans who consume alcohol, 85

percent rarely become intoxicated; with drugs, intoxication is the whole idea.14

Legalization opponents believe that our already burdened health care industry would be

overwhelmed if drugs were legal. This would come in the form of direct results of drug use (more

overdoses, more AIDS patients, and more illness stemming from addiction) and indirect results of

drugs (more injuries due to drug-related violence, accidents, and workplace incidents). They also

believe that legalization would increase the number of emergency room visits, ambulance calls, and

fire and police responses. The ONDCP reports that in 2002 direct health care costs attributable to

illegal drug abuse were $52 billion.15

In addition, legalization opponents disagree with legalization advocates regarding whether

legalization would increase drug use. Legalization opponents believe that drug use would increase

dramatically if drugs were made legal and easy to obtain. William J. Bennett uses the example of

crack cocaine. He writes: When powder cocaine was expensive and hard to get, it was found

almost exclusively in the circles of the rich, the famous, or the privileged. Only when cocaine was

dumped into the country, and a $3 vial of crack could be bought on street corners, did we see

cocaine use skyrocket this time largely among the poor and disadvantaged.16 The DEA also takes

issue with the legalization lobby on the link between easier access to drugs and an increase in

addiction from a humanitarian standpoint: The question isnt whether legalization will increase

addiction levels it willits whether we care or not. The compassionate response is to do everything

possible to prevent the destruction of addiction, not make it easier.17

Drugs Tied to Terrorism

In the aftermath of September 11, it was evident that enormous amounts of money were part of a

global terrorist network. Much of this money was hidden in ostensibly legal outlets, primarily banks,

investments, and charitable organizations. They were correctly targeted by law enforcement

agencies and, in many cases, frozen; thereby denying terrorists access to the money. Many experts

believe that terrorists are now using narcotics trafficking to fund their activities. Although much of this

activity seems to be centered in the Afghanistan and Pakistan region (sometimes referred to as the

Golden Crescent in law enforcement circles), all international narcotics investigations now have to

add terrorism to their list of concerns. Legalization would only exacerbate this problem and put more

money into the terrorists bank accounts.

The DEA has identified links between drug suppliers and terrorism. Their investigations, again primarily

in Afghanistan and Pakistan, have shown connections among traffickers in heroin and hashish,

money launderers, and al Qaeda members. They also suspect a drug-related connection involving al

Qaeda and the train bombings in Madrid. According to DEA, The bombers swapped hashish and

ecstasy for the 440 pounds of dynamite used in the blasts, which killed 191 people and injured more

than 1,400 others. Money from the drugs also paid for an apartment hideout, a car, and the cell

phones used to detonate the bombs.18

Economy Issues

Legalization advocates claim that if drugs are legal it will be a financial windfall for the American

economy. They believe that all the public funds now wasted on the enforcement of drug laws and

related matters could then be used for the good of society in areas such as education, health care,

infrastructure, and social services. As mentioned earlier, some believe that drugs could eventually be

taxed and thus create much-needed revenue. The DEAs response is: Ask legalization proponents if

the alleged profits from drug legalization would be enough to pay for the increased fetal defects,

loss of workplace productivity, increased traffic fatalities and industrial accidents, increased domestic

violence and the myriad other problems that would not only be high-cost items but extremely

expensive in terms of social decay.19

Medical Marijuana

The anti-legalization point of view rejecting the use of marijuana to ease the pain of those suffering

from a variety of illnesses and conditions may appear harsh and insensitive. Their view is that there

are safer, more effective drugs currently available and that there is therefore no need to rely on

medicinal marijuana. The DEA states that the clear weight of the evidence is that smoked marijuana

is harmful. No matter what medical condition has been studied, other drugs have been shown to be

more effective in promoting health than smoked marijuana.20 They also believe that many

proponents of the use of medicinal marijuana are disingenuous, exploiting the sick in order to win a

victory in their overall fight to legalize drugs. They point to studies that show that marijuana smoke

contains hundreds of toxins, similar to cigarettes, and that prolonged use can lead to serious lung

damage. This, they feel, can only exacerbate existing health problems, especially for people with

compromised immune systems. The DEA cites the fact that marijuana has been rejected as medicine

by the American Medical Association, the American Glaucoma Society, the American Academy of

Ophthalmology, the International Federation of Multiple Sclerosis Societies, and the American

Cancer Society.21

Harm Reduction

The term harm reduction is anathema to the anti-legalization lobby. They believe that harm

reduction, a cover-all term coined by the legalizers, is a euphemism encompassing legalization and

liberalized drug policy, and can best be defined as a variety of strategies for making illicit drug use

safer and cheaper for drug users, at the expense of the rest of society, regardless of cost.22 The

passion surrounding the issue of harm reduction is illustrated by Drug Watch International: Harm

reduction abandons attempts to free current drug users and encourages future generations to try

drugs. It asserts that drug use is natural and necessary. Rather than preventing harm and drug use,

harm reduction feebly attempts to reduce the misery level for addicts. Harm reduction forsakes a

portion of the population, often the poor and minorities, to lifetime abuse of drugs.23

Opponents of harm reduction see it as a very dangerous message. They complain that, instead of

addressing and eventually eliminating the problems of addiction, harm reduction creates a situation

that prolongs the agony of the addicted, their families and their community.

Public Reaction

A 1998 poll by the Family Research Council showed that eight out of 10 responders rejected the

legalization of cocaine and heroin. The same poll asked whether they would support making these

drugs legal in a manner similar to alcohol; 82 percent responded No. A 1999 Gallup poll revealed

that 69 percent of Americans are against the legalization of marijuana. In addition, another Gallup

poll showed that 72 percent were in favor of drug testing in the workplace. However, one of the

better indicators of the publics disdain for drugs is the fact that an estimated 50 million Americans

who have used drugs in their youth have now rejected them.24

The U.S. Department of Justice National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) reveals some additional

alarming statistics. In 2002 an estimated 35.1 million people aged 12 or older reported using an illegal

drug within the past year; approximately 3.2 million people were drug-dependent or drug abusers.25

Based on this set of figures, there is still a significant demand for drugs in America and multitudes

willing to supply the drugs. It is this demand for drugs that is at the heart of the issue. Speaking from a

law enforcement perspective, it is clear that we can make millions of drug arrests, but if we dont

address the demand side of the problem, the best we can hope for is maintenance of the status

quo.

Progress in this regard has been achieved and considerable inroads have been made through years

of proactive prevention and education efforts. By 1999 the Office of National Drug Control Policy

reported that drug use in America had been cut in half and cocaine use was reduced by 75

percent.26 Nevertheless, in spite of these promising statistics, the across-the-board nature of the drug

problem in America indicates that we are far from declaring victory.

Speaking Out

The process of completing this project has led to a reexamination of my personal opinions and values

on the issue of drug legalization. I assume that it is normal to be introspective when exploring both

sides of a broad and complex problem. As a parent, a citizen, and a law enforcement official, I am

clearly a stakeholder in this issue. I was concerned that my views in light of my police background

would make me sound like an ideologue. As a public administrator, I hope that I reinforced my

opinions against the legalization of drugs with sound logic and analysis.

My research allowed me to see the issue from a broader outlook. I now understand the pro-

legalization viewpoint much better. Although I am still strongly opposed to the notion of drug

legalization, I realize that, for the most part, they are Americans, from a broad field, who are truly

committed to a cause in which they believe. Although they are pursuing a course that is dangerous

for America, I respect their passion and edication. But they are woefully wrong on this issue.

I encourage police executives to speak out against drug legalization, and I hope the information in

this article has provided some of the resources they need as they prepare to make these speeches.