For those looking for a radical, or at least slightly titillating, solution to some of the world's misery - pick up the latest issue of Foreign Policy. The article I'm referring to is the cover story, "Legalize It", where Ethan Nadelmann, director of Drug Policy Alliance, gives his view on the so called War on Drugs. Now, legalization of drugs is hardly a new initiative, but as a believer in free trade in all its connotations I'm happy to see the issue discussed in a respected magazine for once. Nadelmann's points are the basic ones: the "war" can't be won, the demand can't be reduced, prohibition is mostly based on prejudices.
I only wish he would stress the supply/price side more clearly, ie when the US cracks down on, say, opium production in Afghanistan the risk for the farmers increases, which means the prices will go up. Then even more shady types will enter the market with a fresh army of Kalashnikov-toting ragamuffins behind them, and violence in the industry will increase. Then the US feels the need for some more crop killing, and there we go again. For the US to simply buy all the opium i Afghanistan and burn it (which is sometimes proposed, and would be less costly than the current war on drugs in the country) is probably not a good idea either, as Afghanistan produces 90 % of all the opium in the world. Talk about a giant supply deficit!
No, a well regulated legalization seems to be the answer if we at all care about the people of the developing countries. As Nedelmann writes: "The global war on drugs persists in part because so many people fail to distinguish between the harms of drug abuse and the harms of prohibition. (...) Governments can arrest and kill drug lord after drug lord, but the ultimate solution is a structural one, not a prosecutoral one."
6 comments:
Availability lowers the threshold for first-time use by minors.
This is just one of the reasons why I think Nedelmann is wrong.
If we belive that the state, and not the parents, should regulate children's drug use, then I guess you're right. We could on the other hand assume that legalization would lead to a more open discussion about drugs, and a possibility for the victims of the drug underworld to seek legal protection. Then the children would be safer, not less safe, in a liberal (European connotation) society.
I thought about this and realized I really wanted to pitch in not just my two cents, but my twenty.
We didn't say what drugs we're talking about. First of all, I've never smoked weed and I don't know about its effects, so I wouldn't enter into that debate for that reason. The whole soft vs. hard drugs / weed vs. alcohol debate that people have based on personal experiences is what I mean. But these new plans that have been suggested within the EU (FT reported of certain proposals by a guy called Buiter) also include drugs such as cocaine and heroin, so I'll comment from that pov.
Number one, realistically, most parents whose kids do drugs are either unaware of the use or unable to stop it. Besides, it's not really a question of regulation; it's really about prohibition, because no parent that I know of would condone drug use by children. The question is, which makes prohibition easier: keeping illegal drugs illegal or legalizing them and making them widely available?
In a quick comparison to cigarettes and alcohol, empirical evidence tells us that there are a great number of underage drinkers and smokers. Legalization with age limits on sale does not protect kids either - this stuff trickles down and is available to kids and they do use it.
Number two, the legalization debate sounds to me a lot like legitimization of these substances. As far as people who might approve of drug use, not legalization or such per se, but the actual use, they clearly do not know what they are talking about. Why do I say that?
It's not until you've seen someone go crazy on gamma or another get tied down to a stretcher as they're convulsing from meth withdrawal that you can really know what that stuff does to people. These are not isolated cases and it's not scare tactics; this is real life. People have accidents, they can get permanently sick or injured, they die or they go on disability and it's an incredible waste; whether drugs are legal or illegal makes no difference. Interestingly, this is the distasteful stuff that doesn't lend itself to academic rhetoric: the guy who hasn't held a job in years, who carries Hep C and ends up in the ER where he is so messed up that he tries to stab a nurse with a used needle as he's stripped down with lesions all over his body. (Hypothetical case, not an actual situation.) That face of a former recreational user never shows up in the political columns.
In that sense, I believe the "state" does know better than many individuals. Many people are misinformed or uninformed while others (especially kids) are very susceptible to marketing and social pressure. I want to have faith in people and their rationality, and that's why I keep saying that if people really knew what these toxic substances do to them, they wouldn't start using. It's in the interest of everyone concerned to make the end results of substance abuse very clear and to try to limit use to a minimum. I'll pose the same question again: would increased availability post-legalization be likely to increase or decrease the level of drug use? Could we predict the effects of drug advertising?
Number three, there's the idea put forth by Buiter (mentioned in a column in the FT on Aug 16) that tobacco firms would be in a good position to enter the drug business.
I'll be loud and clear about my individual point of view: if there is any established trade to be loathed in this world, it is the tobacco trade. I've long suggested that smokers (for their own benefit) as well as every executive who works for Big Tobacco (for the benefit of everyone else) should be legally required to sit by the bedside of a chronic COPD or cancer sufferer for an extended period of time and hold a spittle cup. I don't care how or when, they should just do it. Not until you've seen what it's like for a person to be suffocating in their own phlegm without a cure can you realistically know what smoking does to people; each and every smoker who thinks that they're an exception to the rule and safe from harm is sorely mistaken. So is each executive who claims that she's not responsible. That is when you know what addiction is: when a dying man asks for a cigarette. That is NOT free choice.
Likewise, from the individual citizen/consumer point of view, access to drugs has nothing to do with liberty. Drugs would be an incredibly addicting profit source that would start off as a luxury good and by default turn into a necessity. In the worst-case scenario, firms could charge pretty much whatever they wanted for a hit, because an addict needs it.
As in the tobacco scenario, as far as legalizing the drug trade is concerned, I suggest that the prerequisite for doing so is for each future drug exec to shoot up heroin, say, three to five times before they sign their employment contract or immediately at orientation. Walk their talk so to speak.
There are people out there making a killing pushing these products without any remorse. That applies to all addictive substances, but especially drugs. To knowingly sell suffering in a container and enjoy the proceeds is the embodiment of evil: intentional, calculated profit-making that kills and injures people. To legalize such trade for any more products than we already have does not strengthen our collective freedom and well-being, nor does it help us battle the problems.
On a practical note, this is not a scientific experiment in a vacuum. To even attempt such a scheme would be like the Big Bang reform - playing with fire; if we go for it, there's no turning back. On a macro scale, this is really no different from the Sino-British opium trade in the 1800s, which is today condemned as imperialist abuse. In a globalized world, we're not dealing with nations going head-to-head, it's a different kind of game - and that's a whole another conversation.
So yes - I understand why people would debate this issue back and forth, but I respectfully, wholeheartedly disagree with people like Nedelmann and Buiter.
One more thing, re: why do people use in the first place.
A while ago a bunch of us went on a hike to an exquisitely beautiful location. It was a magical place, with deep forest and rocky mountains. A few people wanted to, as they put it, "enhance the experience".
The rest of us just sort of wondered - is anything ever enough? It was kind of sad. There we were, in an absolutely gorgeous place, and we could've connected. Hugs and kisses. That kind of thing. Get the Trangia out, boil some water and have some soup or something.
In the middle of all that beauty, the one ugly thing was the idea that somehow, for some people, it wasn't enough and they saw the need to withdraw into their own little chemical world. Their high was our low.
Well, if nothing else we have one opinion in common: neither of us approve of drug use. But on the other hand, very few people do. In my view, though, that does not mean that I, or anyone else, have the right to stop someone from taking whatever drug he fancies, as long as he doesn't do it in my house or in a way that intrudes on my privacy. This is why I won't argue on many of the points you mentioned, because even though I agree with you about all the negative effects of drugs on a person's wellbeing, I place the liberty of the individual first.
The legalization debate is very much a balancing act. Yes, you may be right that legalizing might lead to condoning, but on the other hand: isn't alcohol use frowned upon in many circumstances? You can't show up to work stoned, any more than you can show up to work drunk, no matter how legalized the substances are. And when the state is able to oversee drug sales, there would be no more bad reactions to impure concoctions made in some mobster's bedroom; no more fear of getting a bullet in the head instead of your Saturday fix; no more going to jail instead of getting professional help when you check into detox.
But my main argument is still the one from the original post: prohibition hurts the poor countries the most, and they are the ones that can't influence the situation.
You know what? Kudos to you for keeping it real and looking out for the common ground. You're absolutely right, we do agree on the fundamentals - drug use isn't something to be encouraged, and drug production and sales should harm as few people as possible, whether in the north or the south.
My views surrounding substance (ab)use are pretty strong and I get that. They're inevitably affected by the fact that people come to my work drunk and stoned every day. No pun intended. (No, not the actual employees. It's stressful, but it hasn't come to that. Yet. We just drink copious cups of coffee. And, fine, occasionally we have some brownies and a good laugh to go with the coffee, and the world's alright again.)
This is my brain on too little sleep. No drugs necessary. Thanks for the blog post, it got me reading more on this subject.
Post a Comment