Study: Drug War Encourages Illicit Drug Use

By TChris, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 07:04:29 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

A sensible policy of drug regulation would treat drug use and abuse as a medical issue rather than burdening the criminal justice system with endless arrests, prosecutions, and incarcerations for conduct that primarily hurts those who voluntary engage in it. Sensible drug policy reform is fiercely resisted by unions representing prison guards and police officers whose jobs depend on continuing the ineffective status quo.

To justify the war's continuation in the face of mounting casualties and no possibility of victory, proponents of the drug war routinely claim that legalization or decriminalization of illicit drugs would encourage kids to experiment with them. The argument is based on faith, not research. A new study by the National Bureau of Economic Research concludes that "tough policing of the illegal drugs market may have the perverse effect of making drugs more affordable and thereby encouraging people to use them."

[more ...]

Will reality deter the drug warriors from basing their arguments on conjecture rather than facts? Don't count on it. As the nation's police departments clamor "for an unprecedented amount of federal aid," they're not likely to admit that we would have all the cops we need (and then some) by ending the war on drugs.

< Sarah Palin Resigns as Governor of Alaska | Hospital Lab Tech in Colorado May Have Infected 5,700 With Hepatitis >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Study: Drug War Encourages Illicit Drug Use | 11 comments (11 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Funny, isn't it? (none / 0) (#1)
by NYShooter on Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 09:41:31 PM EST

We all made fun of GWB for his "faith based," and/or "from the gut" method of Governess. We mocked his contempt for logic, reason, and facts. And yet, here we are; virtually every expert experienced in substance use, mental & physical health issues, criminal & penal issues, agree that the course we've been on for 35 years, and arguably much longer, has not only been a complete bust, but actually, greatly exacerbated the problem.

Now, even as the pretext for what we've been doing collapses all around, the new justification for continuing this madness is, "think of all the jobs we'd lose; prison guards, police, courts, etc." Not a thought is given to the victims, and the immorality of using them as cannon fodder in order to save those jobs.

You really have to wonder if democracy works.

endless (none / 0) (#2)
by Jlvngstn on Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 10:14:58 PM EST

perfect use of the word there. Who in their right mind would fund an "endless" war, Iraq notwithstanding.....

alcohol, pot, cocaine (none / 0) (#3)
by diogenes on Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 10:34:16 PM EST

A lot more college kids binge on alcohol than on pot or cocaine. It seems scarcely believable that illegal pot is more expensive than people growing pot at home in the garden or under plant lamps, which is what teens would do (and pass it out to each other) if it were legal.
Make the argument to legalize on its merits. This study could only vaguely be applied to drugs which cannot be grown at home. Also, these hypothetical studies do not take into account the fact that prospective users/dealers (as opposed to existing ones) do factor in the risk of arrest as a cost of dealing or buying drugs. That cost would be gone if drugs were legal.

On the merits (none / 0) (#4)
by Dark Avenger on Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 11:05:41 PM EST

It seems scarcely believable that illegal pot is more expensive than people growing pot at home in the garden or under plant lamps, which is what teens would do (and pass it out to each other) if it were legal.

Well, to get homegrown stuff as good as high-class MJ isn't easy for the average person to accomplish, as you need a bit of green thumb to do so.

That's not what the argument is, BTW:

One concerns the way consumers judge quality. In the market for electronic goods, say, consumers generally have access to reliable information about the quality of the product. In contrast, heroin users often have no way of gauging the quality of a purchase before they use it.
The second concerns what is known as "search cost". While buyers of TVs can easily switch shops if they don't like a seller, drug users face an increased risk of arrest every time they search out a new dealer. So in Galenianos's model, buyers make purchasing decisions without considering whether they could get higher-quality drugs at a lower price from somewhere other than their usual supplier.
The model produces results that resemble some of what is seen in real drug markets, suggesting that it provides a useful reflection of the real world. It also throws up fresh ways in which dealers and addicts may relate to each other, and some unexpected ways in which these ties can impact the price of drugs.
In one example, the model is used to simulate what happens when the number of police is increased. The researchers assume this would make it even more difficult than usual for buyers to find a new seller.
When they add this effect into the model, some dealers respond by lowering the quality of the drugs they sell; they can get away with this because their customers become especially reluctant to look elsewhere. But more dealers react by working harder to build a good relationship with customers, because finding new ones has become harder than before. They do this by raising the purity of their drugs, making it cheaper for users to get the same hit.

A lot more college kids binge on alcohol than on pot or cocaine.

Yes, and they go to more trouble to get their alcohol from a regulated source via an intermediary than high school kids go through to get a bag of weed for the weekend.

Make the argument to legalize on its merits.

I think I just did, but it is also worth noting that:

In the Netherlands 9.7% of young adults (aged 15-24) consume soft drugs once a month, comparable to the level in Italy (10.9%) and Germany (9.9%) and less than in the UK (15.8%) and Spain (16.4%),[18] but much higher than in, for example, Sweden (3%), Finland or Greece.[4] Dutch rates of drug use are lower than U.S. rates in every category.[19] The monthly prevalence of drugs other than cannabis among young people (15-24) was 4% in 2004, that was above the average (3%) of 15 compared countries in EU. However, seemingly few transcend to becoming problem drug users (0.3%), well below the average (0.52%) of the same compared countries.[4]
The reported number of deaths linked to the use of drugs in the Netherlands, as a proportion of the entire population, is lower than the EU average.[20] The Dutch government is able to support approximately 90% of help-seeking addicts with detoxification programs. Treatment demand is rising.[21]

As for hard drugs, can you explain how Civilization will collapse if heroin, cocaine, etc. are available OTC when it didn't do so over 100 years ago when they were?

Prohibition does not work
A report sponsored by the New York County Lawyers' Association, one of the largest local bar associations in the United States, argues on the subject of US drug policy:
"Notwithstanding the vast public resources expended on the enforcement of penal statutes against users and distributors of controlled substances, contemporary drug policy appears to have failed, even on its own terms, in a number of notable respects. These include: minimal reduction in the consumption of controlled substances; failure to reduce violent crime; failure to markedly reduce drug importation, distribution and street-level drug sales; failure to reduce the widespread availability of drugs to potential users; failure to deter individuals from becoming involved in the drug trade; failure to impact upon the huge profits and financial opportunity available to individual "entrepreneurs" and organized underworld organizations through engaging in the illicit drug trade; the expenditure of great amounts of increasingly limited public resources in pursuit of a cost-intensive "penal" or "law-enforcement" based policy; failure to provide meaningful treatment and other assistance to substance abusers and their families; and failure to provide meaningful alternative economic opportunities to those attracted to the drug trade for lack of other available avenues for financial advancement.[42]"

Reality, meet diogenes.

You're the sort of person a drug dealer prays for,
after praying to Jesus Malverde.

I've only known of one law enforcement effort that ever worked in reducing the drug supply, and that was the first year that CAMP was introduced in CA.

So far CAMP has been good at finding a lot of places in the National and State Parks where MJ is grown(which wouldn't happen if MJ were legal to grow in CA), on cutting the supply and price, not so much.

you misread my comment (none / 0) (#7)
by diogenes on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 08:12:19 AM EST

You assume that I oppose legalization, whereas I actually favor it. However, you can only legalize drugs while acknowledging the large, real health costs which will occur. The main benefits of legalization are in preventing crime/narcodemocracies/street gangs/needless imprisonment. It is undoubtedly clear that alcohol use/disease went down with prohibition and that alcohol is a severe problem today. It is undoubtedly clear that prohibiting tobacco for under 21's has some use in decreasing tobacco use (or else why not allow anyone to buy it). Many people who are in drug treatment are mandated by law enforcement for possession charges (via drug court); those people would not be in treatment if drugs were legal.
If you present legalization as a fairy-land, no-harm solution then the opponents will brand you as hopelessly naive, and that will resonate with the American majority.

[ Parent ]

I don't think I presented it as a fairy-land (none / 0) (#8)
by Dark Avenger on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:10:02 PM EST

I've merely pointed out the benefits the Dutch society has accrued from their handling of the matter vs. the US.

It is undoubtedly clear that alcohol use/disease went down with prohibition and that alcohol is a severe problem today.

Yes, and it enriched Al Capone and promoted a contempt for an unenforceable law at the same time.

Overall alcohol use--particularly consumption of beer--is declining in the US, according to a new study published in the August 2008 issue of The American Journal of Medicine. Researchers examined 50 years of data and found several changes in alcohol intake but no change in alcohol use disorders.
Americans are drinking significantly less beer and more wine, while hard liquor use has remained fairly constant. More people now report that they are non-drinkers. People born later in the 20th century drink more moderately than older people. As we age, our individual alcohol consumption goes down.
Researchers examined 8,000 records of the Framingham Heart Study, the longest population-based study of American adults ever conducted, to measure alcohol consumption over 50 years. Because the Framingham study recruited subjects that were born before 1900 until 1959, it gives insights into behavior and medical histories through most of the 20th Century. Subjects, both from the original cohort and from the children of the original cohort, have been interviewed every 4 years, from 1948 until 2003. Since each individual was followed directly, a set of histories of lifetime alcohol use could be captured.
While heavy alcohol use is associated with numerous bad outcomes, moderate consumption has been linked to improved cardiovascular health and to improved morbidity and mortality in the elderly. This study shows that, on the whole, the American population is moving in a healthier direction. Despite more favorable patterns of drinking, risk of alcohol dependence did not show a decrease. The proportion of people who developed alcohol-related disorders, such as alcoholic cardiomyopathy or alcoholic cirrhosis remained nearly constant across all age groups.
Writing in the article, Yuqing Zhang, DSc, Boston University School of Medicine, and his co-investigators state, "The findings in this study may be considered encouraging in many ways: the average amount of alcohol has decreased in more recently born cohorts, the percentage of the population exhibiting 'moderate' alcohol intake has been increasing steadily, and the percentage reporting 'heavy' drinking has decreased over time...While these data suggest the development of more favorable patterns of alcohol consumption over the latter part of the 20th century, that also show that, at the same time, the cumulative incidence of alcohol use disorders has not shown a decrease, and continuing efforts at preventing them are warranted."

[ Parent ]

You made my point (none / 0) (#9)
by diogenes on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 09:53:53 PM EST

During Prohibition, alcohol consumption dropped while Al Capone was enriched and the Mafia was created. That is the argument to make to legalize, not trying to say that legalization will somehow lead to less pot use because of what the rate of pot use may be in the Netherlands.
There is a reason why 12 year olds do a lot of huffing. It isn't age-related. They have limited access to other stuff, and spray can stuff is easy to buy in stores. It defies common sense that if their older friends can legally buy/possess pot/heroin/cocaine that it won't more easily be passed down the way cigarettes were in my generation.

[ Parent ]

before you did, I might add. (none / 0) (#10)
by Dark Avenger on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 11:37:37 PM EST

That is the argument to make to legalize, not trying to say that legalization will somehow lead to less pot use because of what the rate of pot use may be in the Netherlands.

Actually, that's the point I made in my first comment when I mentioned that college students
under 21 have to get an intermediary to get alcohol from a regulated source, whilst the high school guy or gal who wants to score a bag of weed for the weekend has no such troubles because the sale of weed isn't regulated.

It defies common sense that if their older friends can legally buy/possess pot/heroin/cocaine that it won't more easily be passed down the way cigarettes were in my generation.

It defies common sense that it will be easier for them to obtain it than it is now in an unregulated black market, where direct sales without a middleman is the rule, vs. a regulated market with penalties for distribution to minors under 18.

Nobody was selling cigarettes to you and your buddies in high school for a profit and there wasn't an unregulated black market for tobacco or tobacco products when you were growing up, I'm sure.

[ Parent ]

: Education has to be addressed as well (none / 0) (#11)
by Dark Avenger on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 11:45:36 PM EST


Can you imagine how unhealthy we'd be if we didn't have large organizations spending millions on public health campaigns? If we didn't have them to herd us around with their slogans and posters, our lives would be a nightmare of illicit drugs and bad choices.
Shockingly, however, these well-meaning programs sometimes don't work out so well.
#5.
The D.A.R.E. Program May Increase Drug Use
Damn near every school kid in the United States has been forced to sit through the Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program (D.A.R.E.) at least once. Good ol' Officer Friendly shows up once a month or so and leads the class through obnoxious skits intended to give them an idea what peer pressure is like and how to avoid it. Spoiler alert! You avoid it by just saying "no!"
Apparently, that works for everything from drugs to unwanted sexual advances to strong-armed robbery. But it's more than just saying no, the program aims to equip young people with "creative" ways by which to say it. For the record, we generally incorporate some sort of interpretive dance when we spurn unwanted offers of sex and drugs. But we don't dance that often, if you know what we mean, ladies.
On the surface, encouraging kids to say no to drugs seems like a fine idea. What could go wrong?
Whoops!
It would be hard to actually know how well a program like D.A.R.E. was working unless you, say, kept track of a thousand or so kids who went through the program and then caught up with them 10 years later. So that's exactly what some people did.
Two separate studies, the results of which were prominently reported by TIME, indicated that at the very least D.A.R.E. was ineffective, but at its worst actually pushed kids toward drug use and lowered self esteem. Researchers suspect that the overstated, "peer pressure is around every corner, because EVERYONE IS DOING DRUGS BUT YOU!" message made some kids actually want to get high as a way of fitting in. If everyone else is doing it, why shouldn't they?
The studies argued that the program's use of "drugs are everywhere, f*cking run!" type of messages amounted to hyperbole, and kids don't like hyperbole. All it takes is the kid having one drug-using friend for him to recognize that, no, a single bong hit can't make your brain go running out of your ears like strawberry jam. And if that part is wrong, hell, maybe the whole thing is.
When are we going to figure out that even kids have bullsh*t detectors?

[ Parent ]

We have a couple of (none / 0) (#5)
by JamesTX on Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 02:40:50 AM EST

things in the pipeline that may make a difference. First, the Viet Nam era is getting far enough behind us that the knee-jerk anti-pot politics may lose its impact. The reason legalization has never been on the table before is because marijuana was a political symbol of the anti-war counterculture, making it illegitimate a priori. All that is about to be forgotten history. The people involved are getting too old. The other thing is that baby boomers are getting old and they are going to be in pain. If they continue to be denied relief at the current rate, they are going to get unhappy. There is a chance the new conditions could support rational policy, but there are important financial players who will sabotage it if their needs aren't recognized. First, what can replace the huge illicit economy in which drugs are the current currency (perhaps illicit carbon credits?) Next, what are all the people employed in drug warriorism going to do for work? Also, how can BigPharma get a patent on something? If we take care to be sure all these players can get what they need, change may be possible.

: "If we take care (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by NYShooter on Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 04:25:32 AM EST

to be sure all these players can get what they need, change may be possible. "
Exactly my point above; this is what we're reduced to. No longer is the issue, "does this policy make any sense?" It's the unions and lobbies demanding to keep jobs, even though the jobs are doing work that is worthless, and worse.
To illustrate how perverse this psychotic reasoning is; imagine if someone invented a pill that cured any and all diseases, and cost one cent to develop and manufacture. I wonder how many Senators and Congressmen/women would fight to outlaw it. The Jobs!! All those Jobs! What will we do with the hospitals, insurance companies, doctors, nurses, Equipment manufacturers, etc?"
It would make a great Steven Spielberg movie.
The automobile industry would never have gotten off the ground if the buggy whip makers had had a stronger union/lobby.

[ Parent ]