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 | 7 comments (7 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.

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.

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.

: 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.