During the last several months, I have engaged in numerous discussions concerning legalizing drugs with a variety of people including a college professor, engineering executive, fellow officer, construction worker, salesperson, and government manager. I wrote detailed notes on these discussions in case I decided to use them in this publication. The last chapter contains excerpts from these discussions since not any one person covered all the issues. I have attempted to accurately, and in their own words, reflect actual questions and my responses. This dialogue, then, will serve as a change-of-pace summary of the issues contained in The Myths of Drug Legalization.

Q: I hear more and more about legalizing drugs and have to admit some of what I hear makes sense. I know that you're against legalizing them and are writing some kind of paper. I respect your experience as a drug agent and would be interested in your response to some of the main issues.

A: I'd be glad to give you my views. What issues would you like me to address?

Q: Well, for instance, they say drugs are a victimless crime like prostitution and gambling, and that government doesn't have any business controlling behavior that doesn't harm anyone. They also say that police use special tactics that threaten our privacy and freedom.

A: First, drug abuse is not a victimless crime. The abused children, the crack babies and battered spouses are all victims. The innocent citizens who are assaulted, raped and murdered are victims because drugs affect self-control and normal thought processes, increase aggressiveness and impulsiveness, and release inhibitions in the user. The motorist killed by a drugged driver is a victim. You yourself are a victim because drug abuse costs society between $65 billion and $76 billion a year.

The users are "self-chosen" victims since drugs make them slaves to their pleasure and addictive qualities. We outlawed slavery in this country, but drugs can enslave the user, and I can assure you they don't make benevolent masters.

Second, government has not only the right but the duty to protect people from their own poor decisions as well as protect them from the potential risk of harm caused by others. We have a number of examples, such as drunk driving, possession of explosives and certain weapons, safe foods, control of certain pesticides, child labor, traffic regulations, prescription drugs, and euthanasia.

Lastly, we all give up certain freedoms and a degree of privacy for the good of society as a whole. You, as an individual, may be able to drive safely without any restrictive traffic laws but give up certain freedoms because of the potential harm that could be caused by an irresponsible driver who, without rules and regulations, would drive recklessly. I don't think you'd be in favor of eliminating traffic laws to gain back some of that freedom. This same analogy also applies to drunk driving, which doesn't hurt anyone unless the drunk crashes into somebody or something. Drunk driving, as with drug abuse, places others at just too great a risk of harm.

Frankly, you are probably more afraid of criminals violating your freedom and privacy than you are police. Surely, your wife isn't hesitant to go out at night nor do you lock your doors because you're afraid of police. The people afraid of law enforcement are criminals who don't want their privacy or freedom violated but are so willing to violate those of others or place you and your family at risk.

Q: I can see I really got you started. How about the issue they raise that alcohol and drugs are the same, yet one is legal and the other is not? Where is the consistency in our policy?

A: Alcohol and illegal drugs are not the same. You drink wine at dinner or have a beer after mowing your lawn as a beverage and not necessarily to become intoxicated. The sole purpose of using drugs is to get high. An honest comparison would be drunkenness to the use of drugs.

Q: But doesn't alcohol cost our society much more than all illegal drugs combined?

A: Absolutely, but that's because alcohol is legal, inexpensive and readily available, and illegal drugs are not. Over 50 percent of the people in this country use alcohol, whereas less than 5 percent use illicit drugs. In fact, there are more people addicted to alcohol than use all of the different illicit drugs, even though drugs are far more addicting. Alcohol is responsible for 100,000 deaths, including over 20,000 from drunk driving, whereas drugs are responsible for 20,000 total. Medical costs for alcohol are triple that of drugs, and the total cost to society is double. There are also three times as many arrests for alcohol violations as there are drug violations. This is hardly the model I would be citing to try to justify legalizing a number of more deadly substances. In fact, our alcohol policy and experience with its costs and tragic effects is probably the best argument for keeping drugs illegal. We already have alcohol and tobacco; why would we want to add more?

Q: But aren't most of the costs covered by taxes on alcohol, just like they suggest doing if drugs were legal?

A: Alcohol taxes cover less than ten percent of the total cost of alcohol abuse. That's not a great investment.

Q: I'm always hearing that prohibition during the early 1900s was a failure, and that supports the position that laws against alcohol and drugs don't work.

A: Even though prohibition was unpopular and only in effect for about fourteen years, it did impact the use of alcohol. Alcohol use, alcohol-related deaths, and admissions to hospitals for alcohol psychosis were all reduced approximately 50 percent. Also, contrary to what you hear, there's no evidence of a big increase in crime. That probably makes for good gangster movies, but little else. Prohibition was rescinded because alcohol historically had been part of our lives, and prohibition wasn't supported by the majority. Drugs, on the other hand, have not been part of our everyday lives, and over 80 percent of Americans favor drug prohibition.

Q: How about crime? Wouldn't legalizing drugs reduce the number of crimes and free prison space for the more violent criminals? By the way, how many drug arrests are there in this country?

A: There are approximately I million arrests for drug violations out of a total 12 million arrests annually. Of that million, only about 12 percent are sentenced to prison.

In answer to your first question, yes and no. The number of crimes for drug violations would be eliminated simply because the criminal codes would be removed, but that doesn't mean the behavior would change. If we lowered the age of consent to 13, there would be a significant reduction in the number of child molestation crimes, but those creeps would still be molesting children from ages 13 to 18. Drug dealers and addicts are not suddenly going to change their anti-social attitude and behavior to become law-abiding citizens looking for honest employment. They will continue to commit crimes to pay rent, buy cars, go to concerts, buy clothes, eat, and buy legal drugs. Studies show that most were criminals first, and that drug violations are just another one of the many crimes they commit.

The biggest problem is what drugs do to the user, some of which I described to you earlier. Legalizing drugs would increase the number of users and addicts, and likewise increase the number of violent crimes they commit such as rape, assault, and homicide. In Philadelphia, 50 percent of the child abuse fatalities are by cocaine-using parents. Nationally, about I million child abuse cases are directly linked to substance abusers. Studies show that about half of our violent crimes are committed by drug users.

In addition, drugged driving fatalities would skyrocket. Compared to alcohol, relatively few people use drugs, but they account for a disproportionate number of traffic deaths. Legal drugs would increase use and cause a corresponding increase in crimes against persons. Just look at alcohol and the number of violent crimes that are committed by those under the influence of liquor. We can expect at least that, if not more. Legalizing alcohol did not reduce crime; but, rather, alcohol intoxication led to more crime.

Q: About how many prisoners are in prison for drug violations?

A: About a third. And, quite frankly, if you look at most of their rap sheets, it'll become readily apparent to you that these are not only repeat offenders with previous felony convictions, but violent predators who happen to have been caught on drug violations instead of some of the violent crimes they are committing.

Q: But don't addicts steal to support their habit, which makes up a big part of the crime problem? If drugs were legal, then even though they would still be criminals, they wouldn't have to steal as much.

A: Yes, many do steal to support their self-imposed habit; but studies show that only about 13 percent of those incarcerated in prison are there for offenses related to supporting their drug habit. Again, if you studied their criminal histories, you would find a long history of various crimes and a number of previous felony convictions. How many chances do we have to give them before we say enough?

Q: I keep hearing things about other countries like Great Britain and the Netherlands which have a great deal of success with lenient drug laws. How do you account for that?

A: First by saying it's not true. In the 1970s, advocates of drug legalization touted Great Britain's system of giving free heroin to addicts as a successful health model that we should adopt. They were wrong, and most of the advocates today don't cite Great Britain anymore. What that country experienced was a failure in that its addict population and related problems skyrocketed, while our own heroin addict population, although still a problem, remained fairly stable. Today, Great Britain has adopted a policy closer to the U.S.'s including treating addicts with methadone.

After that, many advocates were excited about the experiment in Zurich, Switzerland, which created a free drug park. What the authorities expected was to see the drug user population remain isolated, less crime, better opportunity for treatment, lower medical costs, and less AIDS because they also gave out free needles. What they actually experienced was an increase in crime, skyrocketing medical costs, very little interest in treatment, a higher AIDS rate, and a general increase in a whole myriad of problems. In less than five years, they abandoned this experiment and shut down the park.

Not satisfied, the advocates began praising the Netherlands, where, although drug use is illegal, many cities simply choose not to enforce the law and allow sale and use of marijuana and hashish in certain areas. The Netherlands has begun experiencing a host of problems including a rise in crime, welfare, unemployment, and addicts from other countries migrating there to indulge their drug appetites. The Netherlands is discovering, like Sweden, Italy and Spain, that lenient drug laws don't work. Besides, a side issue is that the Netherlands is only about half of the size of the state of South Carolina and only has 15 million people compared to our 250 million.

Q: Weren't drugs once legal in the United States?

A: Yes, prior to 1914. And although data is lacking, there is good evidence that with one-third of today's population, drug addiction was greater. That's why we outlawed drugs. In fact, even recently, in Alaska it was legal to possess and use marijuana. What Alaska discovered was it had twice the rate of youth using marijuana as the rest of the nation. Because of increasing drug problems, Alaska once again made possession and use of marijuana illegal.

Q: Are there any countries that have successfully dealt with their drug problem?

A: Yes, but the advocates don't like to use them as examples since their success is directly related to harsh laws and aggressive enforcement. Those countries include Japan, Singapore, and some Moslem countries. I doubt if you or I could buy even a "joint" in Singapore, no matter how hard we tried.

Q: How much does drug law enforcement cost this country every year?

A: Approximately $20 billion a year.

Q: Wow! That's a lot of money.

A: Remember, that includes all federal, state and local expenditures on drug law enforcement, prosecutors, public defenders, courts, and prisons. It's less than one percent of the total federal, state and local government expenditures. In fact, to put it in perspective, this country spends more money-or about $24 billion a year- on food stamps than we do drug law enforcement. Our federal government spends $200 billion just on the interest payment to our debt, and about $235 billion on social programs. Americans spend over $300 billion gambling every year, $36 billion for admissions to entertainment events, and $62 billion in items to make us look better.

Q: Even though, isn't it a fact that if we legalize drugs we would at least be saving the $20 billion annually we now spend on enforcement?

A: No. First off, you're assuming that there would be no governmental costs associated with the distribution, regulation and control of legal drugs. Using alcohol as a model, we know these costs can be substantial. Knowing government, there is very little they do that is costeffective. In 1965, when we started Medicare, Congress projected that it would cost this country $12 billion by 1990. The actual costs that year were $110 billion. In 1968 food stamps cost $173 million annually, and now, less than 30 years later, the price tag is $24 billion.

Q: Would there be other added costs related to legalizing drugs?

A: Absolutely! Experts estimate the cost to at least double what it is today, and some project as much as five times the amount. With increasing numbers of users and increased consumption by users, we can expect a corresponding increase in crime, accidents, medical care, welfare, unemployment, Workers Compensation claims, disability payments, and addicted babies. In . just the one area of addicted babies, it is estimated that the hundred thousand drug-exposed babies born every year cost taxpayers $20 billion annually.

Also, I don't know if you know it or not, but drug addicts and alcoholics are considered disabled, even though it is self-imposed, and thus qualify for SSI payments. The current cost is about $1.7 billion, and these expenditures are shooting up every year.

Actually, drug law enforcement, prevention and treatment are good investments in that jointly, for a comparatively small investment, they save hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars in costs. Keep in mind that, for the most part, when we talk about costs, we talk about economics and not, what are to me, even greater costs such as loss of life, injuries, pain and misery, and destruction of families.

Q: I keep hearing over and over that during the last decade we have had a war on drugs, and it's been a miserable failure. It seems, by what you read in the newspaper and hear on television everyday, that it's true. Do you feel we've lost the war on drugs?

A: First of all, it's important to recognize that we have never waged a war on drugs any more than we waged war in Vietnam. I believe that saying is useful rhetoric but little else. We have had a very limited commitment of resources and no sustained or coordinated true national strategy. Committing less than one percent of the entire federal, state and local governments' expenditures on a war is a joke.

Having said that, in the last 10 to 12 years, we have achieved tremendous success. The permissive '60s and '70s gave rise to the greatest drug problem this nation has ever experienced. In 1979 there were 24 million drug users. In the 1980s we substantially increased our commitment to drug law enforcement and emphasized greater public awareness through prevention and education. Drug use began consistently declining, until by 1992 we had only approximately I I million users in this country. In 1992 your child was half as likely than his or her counterpart in the class of 1979 to use drugs.

Instead of advocating legalizing drugs and sending the message "Just Say Yes," we should build on the successes of the '80s and set a goal to reduce drug use by another 50 percent. There is no doubt in my mind that if the teenage pregnancy rate, high school dropout rate, education test scores, unemployment, poverty, homelessness, and dependence on welfare experienced the same measurable success as our drug policy, we would be applauding the experts and touting the successes. I simply don't understand how the drug legalization advocates can take the position they do nor how this country, in the last few years, can start moving away from what proved successful.
Q: So you believe that tough drug laws actually work.

A: No doubt! The difference between the lenient and permissive '60s and '70s compared to the '80s is a fine example. Other examples include the Navy's tough drug policy, reducing use by 62 percent. In Vietnam 20 percent of our soldiers were addicted to heroin when it was cheap, available, and had minimal sanctions. When they returned to the United States, where heroin was expensive, more difficult to obtain, and illegal, addiction dropped to only two percent. The Harrison Act in 1914, making drugs illegal, caused a tremendous drop in drug use as witnessed by the 1920s through the 1950s. Private industry has repeatedly demonstrated that tough drug policy sharply reduces sick days, on-the-job accidents, and Workers Compensation claims.

A survey of New Jersey and California high school students shows that over 60 percent said that fear of getting in trouble with the law was a major deterrent to drug use. Another survey showed that 79 percent of respondents age 12 and above felt they had no opportunity to use cocaine. The fact that over 95 percent of our population does not use drugs, compared to at least 50 percent that use alcohol, clearly demonstrates the difference between legal and illegal drugs. Even in our schools 70 percent of the students have used alcohol, 44 percent have smoked, yet only 10 percent have used marijuana, and 2 percent have used cocaine.

Q: Why, then, this movement for change?

A: That's a good question, and I don't have the answer. Maybe some people are just frustrated over all these so-called crises that exist in this country. Maybe they are desperate to try something that, on the surface, sounds like a solution. We have a tendency to jump from one so-called crisis to another instead of using long-term planning and goals. Within the last year you've heard we have a health care crisis, homeless crisis, environmental crisis, economic crisis, and so on and so on. By declaring something a crisis, in effect you're demanding an immediate, short-term fix, which simply doesn't work. My biggest concern is that we haven't learned from history, because in the last year or so I've seen a de-emphasis on the drug problem and substantial decreases in funds for drug law enforcement and prevention. The frightening part is that in 1993, for the first time in 13 years, we experienced an increase in drug use. If the lack of action and attention continues, I predict drug use will continue to rise. We will gradually lose the ground we gained in the '80s and early '90s.

Q: What about only legalizing marijuana, which I understand is the least harmful and most used of all illegal drugs?

A: What I've said about illicit drugs includes marijuana and hashish. Both pro- and antimarijuana advocates tend to cite extremes at both ends of the spectrum, from the occasional smoker to the pothead who smokes four or five joints a day. The norm lies somewhere in between. The fact remains that marijuana and hashish are intoxicating substances that make the user high. The degree of mental and physical impairment depends on the amount and strength of marijuana smoked. There is a substantial difference between the 2 to 5 percent THC weed of the '70s and the 10 to 20 percent THC in today's sensimilla. There is a definite reason why the higher grade is more desirable and expensive, and that's simply because it gives the user a more powerful high.

Q: What exactly are the effects of using marijuana?

A: Studies show marijuana can and often does cause apathy, diminishes mental capacity, causes difficulty in concentrating, decline in performance, and lost motivation. Thousands of studies also show marijuana use adversely affects the brain, reproduction process, immune systern, respiratory system, cardiovascular system, and remains in the body for extended periods of time. In addition, marijuana use often impairs normal thought processes, distorts reality, reduces self-control, and releases inhibitions, all of which increase the chance of harmful and criminal behavior. Many times the user is unaware he or she is being affected unless told by others. A Stanford Medical School study showed pilots to be impaired 24 hours after smoking one joint, even though they felt they were functioning normally.

The bottom line is, whenever persons are under the influence, they pose a threat to themselves and others. We don't need more intoxicated people on our streets, at public events, or driving on our highways. Traffic fatality studies clearly demonstrate a disproportionate number of deaths caused by drivers under the influence of marijuana.

Why would we want to make a substance like that legal, inexpensive, and readily available to satisfy the desires of a few who already choose to violate our laws? Haven't the advocates learned anything from our experience with drunkenness?

Q: What about just legalizing marijuana for medical use?

A: For the advocates of drug legalization, that's step one. Interestingly enough, with little research, cigarettes were once touted as having medicinal value by proponents of cigarette smoking. Likewise, some proponents of legalizing drugs, with little data, are pushing marijuana for its medicinal value. According to Doctor Janet Lapey, executive director of Concerned Citizens for Drug Prevention, Inc., the American Medical Association, American Cancer Society, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, and Food and Drug Administration, among others, all testified that marijuana had not been found to be a safe and effective medicine. She also cites 1992 studies by the National Eye Institute, National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and others that there is no evidence that marijuana is effective, particularly when compared to other treatments.

I realize that the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and the Drug Policy Foundation would disagree, but I would tend to challenge their medical expertise and overall objectivity. According to Doctor Lapey, Keith Stroup, 1979 director of NORML, told an Emory University audience that his organization would use the medicinal value of marijuana "as a 'red herring' to give marijuana a good name."

The medicinal ingredient in marijuana is THC, which is already available for treatment as Marinol. There are more effective drugs available, and THC (Marinol) has serious side effects. As a result, Marinol is seldom used.

Testimony of cancer patients and others stricken with serious illness makes heart-wrenching testimony, but many feel some are being used by the advocates to chip away at our drug laws. I'm sure if I were seriously ill, I too would desperately grasp at any hope for relief from whatever source someone said may work.

Q: One last question, and I'll let you go.

A: Okay. I'm sure you saved the best for last.

Q: Well, in a way. Most of what you said makes sense, but it seems like it's all predicated on the fact that drug use would increase. What makes you so certain?

A: Great question, and one of the keys to the whole debate. Let me point out that even among outspoken advocates for legalizing drugs, most have admitted that drug use would increase. They're just not sure how much. Drug experts in law enforcement, treatment and prevention, using their expertise and experience with real-life drug abuse, expert testimony, historical data, studies, and actual past experience with lenient drug laws, believe that drug use would skyrocket, with the most conservatives estimating at least double.

Let's go back to the 60-plus percent of New Jersey and California high school students who were deterred from using drugs because they are illegal. How many more Americans don't use drugs because of the fear of getting in trouble. Take that disincentive away, and you would have a whole new class of former non-users using drugs. The experience in Alaska with legal marijuana and the doubling rate of the use among youth compared to the rest of the nation's youth is a prime example. The experience of Great Britain and Switzerland provide another source of data indicating use would skyrocket.

The medical profession, where drugs are readily available, has a much higher use rate than the general populace. The Vietnam experience with our soldiers clearly shows that cheap and available drugs lead to increased use. Pre-1914, the U.S., when drugs were legal, had a tremendous drug problem which was substantially reduced through drug laws.

Our experience with alcohol and tobacco provides even a clearer picture of what to expect if drugs were legal, inexpensive and readily available. I could go on and on, but enough of the legalization advocates and drug experts. I trust your own logic and common sense to arrive at a reliable conclusion. Let me reverse things a bit and ask you a few questions.

Q: Go ahead.

A: Suppose government allowed the legal sale of USFDA-approved marijuana, hashish, cocaine, heroin, LSD, and amphetamine, and made them relatively inexpensive and easy to obtain. Do you think more people would use any of these drugs?

Q: Of course. I'd have to be a fool to say no.

A: I agree. Do you think, under the same circumstances, current users would use more?

Q: Yes. Why wouldn't they if it was cheap and easy to buy?

A: Do you agree that the greater number of users and the more people using greater amounts of drugs, that more people would be dependent or addicted to these drugs?

Q: Even with my limited expertise in drug abuse, I'd have to say yes.

A: You can see where I'm going with this, but let me shift gears on you a bit and see if logic and common sense can help estimate the rate of increase. If government-licensed drug vendors sold USFDA-approved marijuana, hashish, cocaine, heroin, LSD, and amphetamine at parties for 18- to 25-year-olds, at popular young-adult nightclubs, and throughout college campuses, how many, or what percent, of these young adults would use one of these drugs at least once during a month?

Q: I'd say at least 50 percent.

A: Your estimate predicts at least a tripling of drug use since currently only 15 percent of that age group used any of those illicit drugs within the last month.

Q: Interesting!

A: Assuming the same scenario, and let's say just a doubling of use among the 18- to 25-yearolds, do you think, like with alcohol, there would be leakage to teenagers and therefore more of them using drugs?

Q: Without a doubt, and that's a frightening thought. Oh, by the way, I just thought of another question. Do most people begin using drugs because drug pushers get them hooked to increase their customer pool?

A: No. That's one of the myths spread by some legalizers. Anyone with true drug abuse experience will tell you that most people are introduced to drugs by family or friends. In fact, most pushers are afraid of new people because they could be undercover cops or working for the police. I think that theory came from some old Hollywood movies.

Q: I didn't think that was true.

A: Let me ask you a few more questions. If you supported legalizing drugs, what drugs would you propose legalizing? Would you include PCP, LSD, Ice, crack, Quaaludes, designer drugs, methamphetamine, Fentanyl? If not, how would you control the black market? If you legalize "street drugs," would you also legalize pharmaceutical drugs? If not, why not? Since cocaine is a Schedule II substance, for consistency sake, would you legalize other Schedule 11 substances such as morphine, Dilaudid, Percodan and Demerol? Would the requirement for prescriptions be eliminated? Would people be allowed to use whatever drug they want, and even self-medicate?

Would there be age limits on the use of drugs? If so, what would they be? Would drug use be restricted from the mentally disturbed, mentally challenged, pregnant women, or felons? Would people in critical occupations, such as public transportation drivers, pilots, police, nuclear plant employees, school teachers, day care workers, be restricted from using drugs? Do you support random drug testing? How would you control the abuse among those who are restricted from using?

What strengths of drugs would be available? For instance, would marijuana be 5, 15 or 20 percent THC? How many micrograms of LSD would be permitted? Would we permit cocaine and methamphetamine to be converted into crack and Ice, or would crack and Ice be legal'?

Who would be responsible for distribution-government or private industry? Would celebrities be allowed to advertise drug use? What effect of breaking the international treaty on drugs have on our relationship with other countries? Would addicts from other countries be attracted to the U.S. to indulge their drug appetites?

Would users who became addicted or overdosed, or crack babies be allowed to sue? Would drug houses be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? How much would drug use increase? What would be the additional cost and problems associated with legalizing drugs? Those are just a few of the unanswered questions by advocates.

Q: Good questions, and I don't have a clue what the answers are. I saw an ad in the LA Times with headlines that we spend $150 billion on fighting illegal drugs, yet you say $20 billion. Which is it?

A: Probably both. We spent $20 billion last year, and that figure has increased over prior years. We have maybe spent $150 billion on drug law enforcement over the last 25 to 30 years.

Q: That's not the way it came across. The ad also indicated 40 percent of murders are because drugs are illegal.

A: I saw the ad. What they actually said was the percentage of murders "in and around the drug trade." The key is, what does "in and around the drug trade" mean'? If they weren't purposely distorting the facts and misleading the reader, they would have said 40 percent of murders are directly related to drug laws. They can't say that because only 5 percent fit that category; otherwise, their estimate may be accurate if they claimed 40 percent of murders are committed by persons under the influence of drugs. Big difference, especially for their case! In fact, the whole ad is full of distortions, misrepresentations and unsupported facts. Apparently, there are no "truth in advertising" laws for these types of ads. If they really had a factual basis for legalizing drugs, they wouldn't have to resort to these tactics.

Q: That's a good point, which just reminded me of one last question. I read an article concerning a recent study that treatment is more effective and cheaper than drug law enforcement. What's your response to that?

A: I ordered a copy of the study, but it hasn't arrived yet. Quite frankly, I believe their conclusions are suspect. Drug law enforcement, prevention and treatment are all so interwoven and dependent on one another that it is doubtful that the success or failure of one can be measured in isolation from the others with any degree of reliability. The bottom line is, they are all necessary for successful drug policy, and it is counterproductive to pit one against the other. There have been thousands of well-meaning studies, many with opposite conclusions; however, history and real life experience remain the best indicators.

This fact sheet may be reproduced without the permission of the California Narcotic Officers' Association.

Original URL for this page: http://www.cnoa.org/position-papers-2.htm