What's bad about drugs? It's not that obvious. Without pretending to know it all, here's my take: heroin destroys people through its strength and addictiveness; marijuana can have bad mental health effects even when used casually; I've no idea about cocaine; LSD and speed seem harmless in moderation; ecstasy seems fine except when the drug contains some impurities.
OK, so I'm only vaguely well-informed, but one thing seems pretty clear: the various illegal drugs have little in common in terms of their ill effects. Therefore, it seems like bad policy to cover them all with the same blanket ban. Knowing the disastrous effects of heroin only too well, I can hardly say with a straight face "let people inject it if they want", but that shouldn't preclude rational analysis, and I think there are damn good reasons for saying just that. On the other hand, thousands of people take ecstasy and other party drugs all the time with only occasional casualties that could be prevented if the drugs were legal. How? If people could buy ecstasy through legal avenues, it would be quality-controlled, thus eradicating the main cause of illness and death associated with the drug. Just today, I read in The Daily Telegraph about a group called "Enlighten" which stands outside rave parties and uses high-tech equipment to detect dodgy chemicals in drugs. A great idea, no? No; it's illegal. While I'm not suggesting the police should turn a blind eye to the law, such a deleterious outcome for people's safety should cause the law to be reviewed. All the quality control in the world will not change the fact that a tiny percentage of people are so allergic, if that's the term, to ecstasy, and presumably some other drugs, that the best quality product will still harm or kill them. Well, the same goes for peanuts. In an ecstasy-friendly society, at least people could seek medical advice, and the dangers could be discussed and researched openly.
Conclusion so far: ecstasy causes such a small amount of harm that it should be legalised so that it can cause even less harm. What about marijuana?
Dope was a popular drug among baby-boomers in the 60s and 70s, but the product widely consumed now is thought to be far stronger than it was back then, with concomitant dangers. Medical research seems to be crystallising around the opinion that wacky-backy causes such problems as schizophrenia and depression, even when not consumed in large quantities. This concurs with my observation. Such harm is obviously a concern, and so the consideration of the legalisation of marijuana can't easily proceed along the same carefree lines as ecstasy. That said, it's not obvious that marijuana is harmful to everybody who goes near it, so a zero-tolerance approach is not likely to be satisfactory. For instance, people with certain illnesses should be able to access its medicinal benefits.
Legalising marijuana would have one of the same implications as legalising ecstasy: it would enable quality control and invite further research into the impact of the drug on its users. The former benefit might help alleviate the problem of dangerously concentrated marijuana being smoked these days, by labelling the strength of the product, as with cigarettes. Of course, criminals could still distribute harder stuff, but their market would be greatly diminished as casual and regular users appreciate the convenience of the legally-available product.
I won't analyse speed and cocaine because I don't know much about their health impact, but it's reasonable to assume that they lie somewhere between marijuana and heroin in that respect. So we turn to heroin. As I stated earlier, it's not easy to defend the legalisation of this drug when you consider the tragic effect it has on people's lives through its strength of impact and addiction. However, there are clear potential benefits to legalisation, and these must be considered. Consider also that junkies are generally among the most desperate people in society, and therefore their health problems extend far beyond heroin use. If they didn't abuse heroin, they would surely abuse alcohol or other drugs, and another grisly end, or grisly existence, would substitute for overdose.
OK, the benefits of legalising heroin include the familiar quality control and research, but don't stop there. By distributing heroin to those who want or need it, the opportunity is there to provide counselling and offer rehabilitation. Most addicts, I'm sure, would want a way out of their addiction. They may have access to rehabilitation now, but that would leave them without any control: the doctors assisting them cannot prescribe heroin. Perhaps it's not necessary for rehab, but put yourself in the addict's place. Would you willingly rule out any further use of the drug you are so physically and psychologically dependent upon? How could you possibly take that first step? If heroin were legal, a range of possibilities become available. An addict could be administered a regular low-strength hit to maintain them while at the same time they are assisted in performing meaningful work or community service, not as a criminal but as a valued member of society. Even if this hit had to be administered every day for the rest of their lives, their situation is far better than before -- and now. However, as their self-esteem grows and their other psychological problems are managed, it's likely that they will be willing and eager to take the steps required to banish heroin from their lives. The point here is that a heroin addict has in all likelihood reached rock bottom in life and is signalling a cry for help. The notion that they are a criminal aiming to do damage to society is cruel and absurd.
Another compelling reason to legalise heroin is economics. So much crime is committed in its name, from burglaries to raise funds for a hit to gang warfare over distribution rights. Some of the nastiest and most ruthless people in the world are involved in the drug trade. It's the very illegality of drugs that causes all this. Because drug smuggling is illegal and faces very stiff penalties, it's risky. People who engage in risky activities do so only in expectation of a rich reward. The availability of such illicit reward motivates organised criminal activity of such calibre it seems impossible to police. Van Nguyen met his maker last week for attempting to smuggle nearly 400g of heroin through Singapore on to Australia. The ringleaders behind the operation couldn't care less about him and will find another desperate and/or greedy "mule" to carry their illicit load. Such riches are to be made in the drug trade that they will stop at nothing, even threatening to harm the mules' families if they don't go through with it. And the more we and other nations prosecute the "war on drugs", the more riches there are to be made.
Legalisation would undercut these vile acts by allowing supply to meet demand as the free market intended. The cost of drugs would fall, meaning desperate junkies wouldn't need to commit so much petty crime (theft, break & enter, prostitution) to fund their habit. The reward wouldn't be there for crime gangs. I'd expect that the level of crime in society would fall dramatically. Of course, with financial and legal obstacles to drug use lifted, one would expect such use to rise. Would we see a huge increase in heroin use? I doubt it: what's so attractive about it that those not currently desperate enough to flout the law would go near it? I expect that a small rise would occur, but that the strategies we're using to suppress heroin use are exacting too high a cost. If people really want to use it, let them, and provide the support for them to rehabilitate.
The other drugs have the same economic factors as heroin, just with different degrees of risk and reward. Their use probably would increase, but the ability to assure quality would reduce the harmful effects, and the ability to run genuine research and education programs would help people to make responsible decisions. After all, we allow people to decide how much alcohol they want to drink, and that we allow cigarette smoking at all is hypocritical in the face of tough laws on other drugs.
I've tried to analyse the costs and benefits of drug legalisation. The costs may be much greater than I suggest, and the benefits may be illusory. But the current drug laws are not good enough -- at the very least, there should be different laws for different drugs, rather than ludicrously treating them all as equals. Good law, care for the afflicted, common sense for the party goers, and the fight against organised and petty crime all demand that we consider these costs and benefits properly and openly.
Postscipt. I just came across this great quote from P.J. O'Rourke. His Parliament of Whores is one of my favourite books!
Anyway, no drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power.
No comments:
Post a Comment