Pubdate: Thu, 10 Jul 2014
Source: Daily Press, The (CN ON)
Copyright: 2014 Sun Media
Author: Steve Lafleur
Page: A4


Does caffeine lead to cocaine use? Obviously not. But what would 
happen if caffeine was outlawed? Naturally, a black market would 
emerge. Drug gangs, which are highly skilled at operating outside of 
the law and have pre-existing distribution channels would begin 
trafficking illegal caffeine pills.

If people were forced to use black market distribution chains to 
obtain a mild stimulant such as caffeine, would they be more likely 
to opt for a stronger stimulant such as cocaine? Almost certainly.

Dealing with drug dealers is binary. Either you do it or you don't. 
And if you do, they will likely try to upsell you. Drug dealers are 
like any other sales people, minus the legal sanction (meaning they 
are more likely to rip you off or assault you). They want to obtain 
the highest profit margin possible.

Cocaine sells at a much higher margin than caffeine pills would, even 
if caffeine was outlawed. Even if most people resisted the dealers' 
insistence that cocaine would provide a better experience, some 
non-drug users would try it out; some would even become addicted. 
Caffeine use would likely decline, while use of cocaine and other 
illicit drugs would increase.

The above hypothetical is analogous to the prohibition of marijuana. 
People often refer to marijuana as a gateway drug that leads to usage 
of stronger drugs. There is no intrinsic gateway effect from 
marijuana. However, once you're buying marijuana on the black market, 
it isn't much of a step to purchase psychedelic mushrooms, or 
cocaine, or ecstasy.

Once you have a dealer, he/she will try to upsell you. Marijuana 
isn't a gateway drug: black market marijuana is a gateway drug.

Legalizing marijuana would erode gang profits. It provides around 
half of global drug gang profits. One might argue that they would 
simply make up for this by pushing drugs that remain illegal. This is 
certainly what they'd try to do. However, legalized marijuana would 
disrupt the entire black market.

Since dealers would no longer be able to lure customers in by selling 
them marijuana, only to later upsell them, they would have a much 
more difficult time engaging customers to begin with - and if dealing 
isn't profitable, gangs will have a hard time finding dealers to buy 
their wholesale products. While marijuana use would likely increase 
(though it actually decreased in Portugal after decriminalization), 
gang profits would decrease and other drug availability would 
consequently decrease.

One might argue from the above logic that all drugs should be 
legalized. That would be simplistic. Some drugs may pose such a 
threat to users and society that the trade-off of allowing gangs to 
profit off of them from selling a small amount is preferable to 
legalizing them, even if that only means a marginal increase in 
usage. Drugs such as crystal meth fall into that category. A true 
harm-reduction approach to drugs would weigh both the costs of drug 
use and prohibition. Both can be substantial. We need a rational 
approach to making these calculations.

One approach would be creating three legal categories. The first 
would be milder substances that while harmful, are widely used. Hard 
liquors, cigarettes, and marijuana are substances that would occupy 
that category.

The harm from the substances is less than the destruction resulting 
from prohibition. These drugs should be restricted to adult usage, 
and should carry specific excise taxes. The second category would 
include drugs that can be very harmful to users, but rarely fatal, 
and rarely causing significant externalities. The prime example is 
cocaine. The harm rarely extends beyond users and their families. 
These drugs should be decriminalized so that problem users can seek 
treatment without fear of legal repercussions. The third category is 
drugs that are extremely harmful to the users, and society as a 
whole. Drugs such as crystal meth should likely remain illegal.

While they would continue to line the pockets of drug gangs, the harm 
from even a modest increase in usage would be substantial.

Gangs will always exist but strangling their most benign revenue 
sources would reduce their ability to finance distribution of the 
worst drugs, as well as other evils such as human trafficking.

Drug policy is often considered the domain of morality. It shouldn't 
be. Issues of personal morality should not be legislated. But when 
public safety is at stake, it can make sense to crack down on certain 
drugs. A utilitarian, harm-reduction approach to drug policy would be 
a vast improvement over our reckless, moralistic approach.

Steve Lafleur, policy analyst for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom