| Rethinking the war on drugs Our nation’s seven-decade war on drugs is akin to fighting an invasion of cockroaches with a hammer: lots of collateral damage, but the bugs keep coming. I see the issue not as one of law enforcement but of health care. Recreational drug users, complete with good jobs and families - not violent criminals - are typical of the individuals I’ve encountered. My new bride and I were injured, and our car wrecked, in a collision with a drunk driver more than 40 years ago. I didn’t seize upon the horrifying accident as an argument for reinstating alcohol prohibition, nor would I have thought it justified marijuana prohibition if the driver were high on that. The problem isn’t legal status of the intoxicating substance that a DUI driver uses, but the fact that he or she has chosen to drive under its influence. Lock ’em up! But let the rest of us have our intoxicating substances, so long as we don’t injure someone else. Not that I employ intoxicating substances (well, beer sometimes). Drugs of abuse are generally harmful to the user (although some have legitimate medical benefits), so I cannot recommend taking them without medical supervision, even though one has a right to. The issue here is not how bad drugs are. It’s that the drug war is worse: < * Nearly half a million people are behind bars in the U.S. for drug offenses, more than the number of all criminals incarcerated in Western Europe (which has a larger population). * Restricted access to clean needles favors the spread of diseases like HIV and hepatitis. * The 800,000 annual arrests for marijuana possession include people with AIDS, cancer, and other dread diseases who need the drug medically. * Zero-tolerance policies can punish the innocent, and are applied in a racist, classist, and inhumane manner. Children of people in prison for drugs risk educational failure, delinquency, and joblessness. Moreover, 83 percent of those charged with marijuana possession in the last decade were black or Latino, even though European-Americans are more likely to use the substance. Yes, but if drugs were decriminalized and prices fell, wouldn’t everybody start using and just take more and more? Not likely. Not everybody enjoys the drug experience, nor is everyone equally addiction-prone. Moreover, the available evidence (admittedly scanty) indicates that users of heroin, at least, do not generally keep ramping up the dose. The Victoria Times Colonist reported that a major study of addicts in Montreal—all of whom had failed methadone treatment—showed that injection of pharmaceutical-grade narcotic was followed by stabilization of dosage and sometimes by reduced frequency. Study participants, who received the drug gratis, also in some cases gained weight, found jobs and gave up prostituting themselves for drug money. I would like to see a share of the $40 billion annual spending on the drug war diverted to research, rehabilitation, and, yes, pure and sterile drugs for the hopelessly addicted. In the final analysis, we must wonder why people take these drugs in the first place. That’s more of a social than a medical question, with the answer often being to transcend their dreary and mundane existence. I don’t know how to cure social ills, but I submit that drug prohibition and prison-building are not alleviating any of them. Albert Hofmann, who discovered LSD, didn’t think people needed drugs for transcendence. In all his 92 years, during which he took LSD many times, he never had keener experiences than the occasional outstanding ones of normal living. His advice: "Go to the meadow, go to the garden, go to the woods. Open your eyes!" Richard P. Huemer, MD 2755 W. Ave. N Palmdale, CA 93551 661-947-8299 |
Home Volunteer Events Officers In the Media Newsletter Libertarian Links Candidates World's Smallest Political Quiz |