Pubdate: Thu, 25 Oct 2001
Source: High Point Enterprise (NC)
Copyright: 2001 High Point (N.C.) Enterprise
Contact: http://www.hpe.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/576
Author: Alan Reiner, Alan Randell, Craig Schroer, Windsor Wilder Jr,
Richard Sinnott, Kirk Muse, Chris Kirby
Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1805/a02.html?1362
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)
LEGALIZATION MAKES SENSE
Doug Clark makes the argument that legalizing drugs would not work ("We'll
never make drugs legal," Oct. 23). I beg to differ. I could go on for hours
about why drugs need to be legal, but Clark seems to acknowledge the
existence of these reasons, so I will go on to his main concern - how drugs
would be legal.
First, I would like to answer the concern about how some drugs would have
to remain illegal. This is not the case. Legalization acknowledges that, no
matter how damaging a drug is, prohibiting it will make it more dangerous
and engender violence and crime around its unregulated market. Legal
distributors provide safer and purer drugs than black market dealers, and
they don't gun down competition, either. Less violence, less crime, less
overdoses, less bad drugs and less death. Therefore, if there is demand for
the drug, there would be some form of regulation.
Second, there definitely would be legitimate businesses to take over the
market. They know to put health warnings on all packaging and provide
safety tips to avoid lawsuits. Also, these businesses would not be able to
advertise the sales of any of these drugs, and they would only be sold in
special drug stores so there would be no impulse buying by nondrug users.
Third, there undoubtedly would be age restrictions, and kids would have
less access to them under this regulated market. Why? As it is, drug
dealers push drugs to kids because they run the risk of getting arrested no
matter whom they sell to. Kids are easier to sell to than adults, though.
And when they can make a 1,000 percent profit or more, they want to sell as
much as they can. A regulated market sells drugs to adults only, and fewer
people will supply to kids because they run the same risk of arrest for
much, much less profit.
There is a vast array of reasons to legalize drugs and very few reasons to
continue with our insane war against them. Let's pull the plug on this war
and put our time and money into treatment and education.
ALAN REINER, Urbana, Ill.
*
Let's see if I understand the point Doug Clark is trying to make. Drug
prohibition isn't working, but we must continue with a failing program
because no one has suggested how putting an end to prohibition and
legalizing drugs will work.
Ah, yes, slavery doubtless continued long after most people realized that
it was a gross abuse of human rights because no one could explain exactly
what the freed slaves would do. I don't think so.
Women were denied the vote for many years because no one could explain
exactly how the women would vote. I don't think so.
Alcohol prohibition wasn't ended for several years after most people
realized what a huge mistake it was until someone explained exactly how to
keep organized crime out of the alcohol-distribution business and to keep
alcohol away from children. I don't think so.
Drug prohibition not only isn't working but is a gross abuse of the human
right of free adults to ingest any drug they've a mind to. Let's just end
it. We must end it.
ALAN RANDELL, Victoria, Canada
*
It is admirable that Doug Clark seeks to directly address some of the
issues now being raised in regard to the viability of the war on drugs,
particularly in light of the newly kindled war on terrorism ("We'll never
make drugs legal," Oct. 23). However, many of the points he raised indicate
that he has not invested much time in researching the answers to the
questions that he poses.
Perhaps the most egregious error is the way he casually substitutes the
word "decriminalization" for the word "legalization." These two distinct
policy options have drastically different ramifications, particularly in
terms of their ability to staunch the flow of money to organized crime.
Clark is also mistaken in his supposition that no one has presented a
cohesive plan for how we might implement drug-law reform. You can find just
such a plan online at the Web site of the group Common Sense for Drug
Policy titled, "The Effective Drug Control Strategy 1999"
(www.csdp.org/edcs/edcs.htm). I would also strongly recommend the new book
by conservative Superior Court Judge James P. Gray titled, "Why Our Drug
Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It: A Judicial Indictment of the
War on Drugs." This book is a must read for anyone who is serious about
understanding the argument for drug-law reform. It is possible, though
unlikely, that after reading this book you will still support the status
quo, but at least you will be aware of the actual arguments and the
solutions that reform leaders advocate.
CRAIG SCHROER, Austin, Texas
*
Who does Doug Clark mean when he says "we" will never legalize drugs? He's
sure not talking about me or the other citizens of Washington state (or
Oregon, California, Hawaii, Alaska, Arizona, New Mexico or Maine).
Is he sure he wouldn't like to secede from the Union? I think "we" might
let you leave this time.
WINDSOR WILDER Jr., Olympia, Wash.
*
In the interests of a rational public dialogue, I would like to respond to
Doug Clark's questions, at least some of them.
His big question is how. The answer: by repealing the laws that made them
illegal. That is simplistic, I admit, but that is the brass tacks of reform.
Clark and others must keep in mind that all drugs were legal in this
country prior to 1914. That is about 130 years during which time this
country fairly thrived. We won our independence under legalized drug sales,
led the industrial revolution under legalized drug sales, and everything
else in between.
During that time, drugs were sold by pharmacists and doctors, and many
patent medicines included drugs that are today illegal. Today, morphine and
cocaine are produced legally by licensed companies, and in the event that
drug sales were re-legalized, those companies would have no problem
producing more and paying the associated taxes.
Clark is right that the politicians and bureaucrats do not support
re-legalization, for that would threaten significant parts of the
bureaucracy and the status quo. That the mainstream media, by and large,
are against it is not surprising, either. That media, sadly, have not been
known for original thinking or historical perspective.
RICHARD SINNOTT, Fort Pierce, Fla.
*
Doug Clark gave some very compelling reasons why we must end our
counterproductive policies of drug prohibition in his thoughtful column,
"We'll never make drugs legal" (Oct. 23). It is not so much that we have
lost the war on drugs but rather that the immutable laws of supply and
demand remain unchangeable.
Clark asks how should drugs be legalized. About the same way that alcohol
was re-legalized with the repeal of alcohol prohibition. Notice that since
alcohol prohibition has ended, practically nobody dies or goes blind from
"bathtub gin" like thousands did during alcohol prohibition.
Please notice also that alcohol cartels have disappeared, along with
alcohol dealers settling their disputes with gun battles in the streets.
Also, please notice that now alcohol sales are regulated, controlled and
taxed by our government, not criminal gangs. Only legal products can be
regulated, controlled and taxed.
With the re-legalization of recreational drugs, we will still have drug
addicts, but the harm from the drugs will be much less because the drugs
will be of known quality, potency and purity.
Drug prohibition is supporting organized crime at home and international
terrorists abroad.
KIRK MUSE, Vancouver, Wash.
*
I'd like to comment on "We'll never legalize drugs."
Far from being on their knees, the tobacco companies seem to be doing quite
well. Try checking their stock prices.
How would you make drugs legal? Marijuana could be decriminalized, allowing
smokers to grow their own, and no government oversight would be needed.
Cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine? They are manufactured by drug
companies now and sold through prescription. Do a little research, we're
not treading new ground here.
Some drugs are too dangerous for prescription? Much better to have them
sold by criminals, I guess, at vastly inflated prices.
We can't tell how many Americans may have been spared a life of degradation
because of the threat of arrest, but we can tell how many millions of lives
have been ruined because of drug laws. Better to base drug laws on
intangibles than on facts that can be measured?
CHRIS KIRBY, Richardson, Texas
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jackl