COLUMN: The Viability of Decriminalization

From Biren Johnson's "Footsteps in the Dark," Fall '94 The proclaimed "war on drugs" is doing poorly and the loser, the United States government, is running out of options, at least ones that won't compromise the morals and self-interest of this country. The "war on drugs" has been fought for years and not once has the United States government been considered a true winner. Problems that continually plague this country include: the definite and increasing rise in drug abuse, the fact that seven million drug abusers exist in the U.S., the increased violence of drug dealers in the lower economic areas of our country and increased smuggling of drugs into the country despite stringent efforts to deter it. These are just the effects however. The real interest and concern of the U.S. government and mainstream society should be the causes, which seem to be unstoppable. People need to realize that drug trafficking is an international problem -- considering the laws of supply and demand, as long as there is a high demand for a substance the suppliers will keep on producing. Unfortunately, the theory is supported by the insatiable appetite for illegal substances in this country. Therefore, American officials must come up with a plan to reduce both demand and supply. There have been numerous suggestions for how to solve the drug problem, including the following: · using the military to stop the influx of drugs · drug treatment to help users "kick the habit" · decriminalization of drugs to take the profit and violence out of drug-related activities · increased law enforcement on drug crimes · destroying the crop before delivery · widespread/random drug testing The problem with most of these suggested solutions is that many involve the spending of billions of dollars, which apparently does not work. Not only are the costs weighed by tax dollars, the public interest and individuals' lives, but no matter how stringent the measures for the deterrence of drugs in this country, drugs will always get in. Most likely they will do so -- as shown in the past -- at increasing amounts. So what do we have? Wasted money on ineffective measures to "win" the war on drugs. Although legalization has been often scrutinized in the public eye, after looking at all the options decriminalization seems a more viable option. You might ask yourself, what's the difference? Decriminalization implies government control, while legalization does not. Just look at the Prohibition Era. When alcohol was made illegal, a huge black market was established and violence and other atrocities soon followed due to the increased rewards for producing and selling the drug. Alcohol was then decriminalized, which included governmental control. For example, the intent of the drinking age law is to curb the excessive use of alcohol. Tobacco is decriminalized in the U.S. in a similar way under governmental control: i.e. higher taxes on cigarettes, cigars, tobacco-related products, etc. Decriminalization is a viable option because it minimizes the drug abuse and costs to society imposed by drug control measures. Unrestricted access to all drugs would not be a realistic option because of the responsibility of the U.S. to remain fair to all citizens, most of whom are not drug abusers. Society should not suffer from the ill effects of drugs without some controlling measures. Decriminalization, however, does not promise healthier societies, reduced usage of a substance or the health hazards that occur with it. For example, according to statistics from the Department of Health and Human services, alcohol has been cited as a major factor in a great deal of work-related injuries, suicide attempts and traffic deaths. Tobacco has been responsible for a great number of deaths as well. It is interesting that the health costs of marijuana, heroin, cocaine, and other supposed "dangerous" illegal drugs count for only a small fraction of all these deaths combined! The view of many is that criminalizing alcohol and tobacco would be an infringement on Americans' constitutional rights to consume the substances they want and assume the risks that come with them. Creating laws that would try to coerce citizens into abstaining from those substances would require enormous and disastrous economic and social costs. Isn't that what is going on now with the illegalization of "recreational drugs?" Legalization of drugs has been discussed in many forms -- from a free market, a market with government intervention (decriminalization), or a government monopoly. Tobacco and alcohol are examples of industries with government intervention where the government controls the potency of the drugs. Although a black market would still exist with the decriminalization of "recreational drugs," the government could set drug prices at a level that is high enough to discourage its usage but low enough to minimize the abundance of black market opportunities that exist today. As far as the international suppliers are concerned, drug-producing countries should evaluate their own best interests independent of U.S. demands. More effort should be placed on improving domestic policies dealing with drugs rather than trying to affect drug production in other countries. Ultimately the war on drugs can be one with a careful study of economic laws rather than mere military might. Biren Johnson is a senior Strategic Management major from Naperville, Illinois. Footsteps in the Dark appears alternate Mondays.