Prohibition

[j4bberw0ck]

Prohibition failed in 1920's America and attempts at prohibition (in the context of "recreational" drugs) has failed dismally ever since. The human race has been desperate to get blitzed from time to time since evolution began - and even elephants fight for a place round a waterhole when fruit drops in and ferments, turning the water into a weakly alcoholic drink - or so I've read.

So from the point of view of drugs control, I've been on the side of those who say that decriminalising the whole lot is likely the way to go, for some time. It's either that, or shoot users and dealers immediately, without trial, on sight, but then I suspect we'd be short of a number of noble .Orgers, let alone the schools being a lot emptier .

Then I came across the most eloquent argument I've ever seen for decriminalisation: a letter written by Milton Friedman to the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the USA in 1990:

An Open Letter to Bill Bennett
by Milton Friedman, April 1990 In Oliver Cromwell's eloquent words, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken" about the course you and President Bush urge us to adopt to fight drugs. The path you propose of more police, more jails, use of the military in foreign countries, harsh penalties for drug users, and a whole panoply of repressive measures can only make a bad situation worse. The drug war cannot be won by those tactics without undermining the human liberty and individual freedom that you and I cherish.

You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are a scourge that is devastating our society. You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are tearing asunder our social fabric, ruining the lives of many young people, and imposing heavy costs on some of the most disadvantaged among us. You are not mistaken in believing that the majority of the public share your concerns. In short, you are not mistaken in the end you seek to achieve.

Your mistake is failing to recognize that the very measures you favor are a major source of the evils you deplore. Of course the problem is demand, but it is not only demand, it is demand that must operate through repressed and illegal channels. Illegality creates obscene profits that finance the murderous tactics of the drug lords; illegality leads to the corruption of law enforcement officials; illegality monopolizes the efforts of honest law forces so that they are starved for resources to fight the simpler crimes of robbery, theft and assault.

Drugs are a tragedy for addicts. But criminalizing their use converts that tragedy into a disaster for society, for users and non-users alike. Our experience with the prohibition of drugs is a replay of our experience with the prohibition of alcoholic beverages.

I append excerpts from a column that I wrote in 1972 on "Prohibition and Drugs." The major problem then was heroin from Marseilles; today, it is cocaine from Latin America. Today, also, the problem is far more serious than it was 17 years ago: more addicts, more innocent victims; more drug pushers, more law enforcement officials; more money spent to enforce prohibition, more money spent to circumvent prohibition.

Had drugs been decriminalized 17 years ago, "crack" would never have been invented (it was invented because the high cost of illegal drugs made it profitable to provide a cheaper version) and there would today be far fewer addicts. The lives of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent victims would have been saved, and not only in the U.S. The ghettos of our major cities would not be drug-and-crime-infested no-man's lands. Fewer people would be in jails, and fewer jails would have been built.

Columbia, Bolivia and Peru would not be suffering from narco-terror, and we would not be distorting our foreign policy because of narco-terror. Hell would not, in the words with which Billy Sunday welcomed Prohibition, "be forever for rent," but it would be a lot emptier.
Decriminalizing drugs is even more urgent now than in 1972, but we must recognize that the harm done in the interim cannot be wiped out, certainly not immediately. Postponing decriminalization will only make matters worse, and make the problem appear even more intractable.

Alcohol and tobacco cause many more deaths in users than do drugs. Decriminalization would not prevent us from treating drugs as we now treat alcohol and tobacco: prohibiting sales of drugs to minors, outlawing the advertising of drugs and similar measures. Such measures could be enforced, while outright prohibition cannot be. Moreover, if even a small fraction of the money we now spend on trying to enforce drug prohibition were devoted to treatment and rehabilitation, in an atmosphere of compassion not punishment, the reduction in drug usage and in the harm done to the users could be dramatic.

This plea comes from the bottom of my heart. Every friend of freedom, and I know you are one, must be as revolted as I am by the prospect of turning the United States into an armed camp, by the vision of jails filled with casual drug users and of an army of enforcers empowered to invade the liberty of citizens on slight evidence. A country in which shooting down unidentified planes "on suspicion" can be seriously considered as a drug-war tactic is not the kind of United States that either you or I want to hand on to future generations.
Professor Friedman, 1976 Nobel Laureate in economics, now serves as Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution.



Leaving aside the practised cynicism of a few about the United States (and pointing out, should I need to, that the President Bush referred to isn't the one who's there now) what are the views of .Orgers?

[Boozeburglar]

Personally I am against the blanket decriminalisation of all drugs.

This does not preclude prescription of currently banned drugs; just the free uncontrolled use of them.

There have to remain some protections for the young or the vulnerable.

What I would support is better guidelines on the application of the law, so that me and my friends cannot be given a criminal record for enjoying the use of the herb now and then, as long as we are responsible adults.

I would like to be able to go into an off license and buy some weed.

I don't see why I should be able to buy heroine the same way, but if I am addicted to it I don't see why I can't get a prescription for it and stay safe.

It is not as if we don't have a ready source we can control so it costs little to the state.

[canuck]

...
There have to remain some protections for the young or the vulnerable.
...

First disclaimer: I am not a person of knowledge in the area of drugs - legal or illegal.

For me the decriminalisation issue revolves around the definition of the term "vulnerable". My concern is that all people are likely vulnerable.

[Gleber2]

First disclaimer: I am not a person of knowledge in the area of drugs - legal or illegal.

For me the decriminalisation issue revolves around the definition of the term "vulnerable". My concern is that all people are likely vulnerable.

But not really anymore vulnerable than in our failing system of control. If all drugs were made legal and subjected to strict government control and our education system took a more realistic attitude to the subject of drugs I am sure the drug problem would decrease.

[Margaret M.]

I totally agree with the letter penned by Friedman. I have always felt the world would be a better place were the criminal element removed from the drug scene. If one wants to use drugs, they will do so whether they are legal or not. I have no desire to use them and that lack of desire will remain if they are legalized. I think our children would be better protected if they were legalized. At the moment, drugs are available to primary scholars in many schools here.

[JAWS]

I don't know what the answer to the problem is but one thing is absolutely certain, the way it is being dealt with currently is not working.
What concerns me even more is that what is happening now is probably making the problem far worse rather than improving it.
I can't speak for London but the gang warfare in Manchester, which has been going on for at least 25 years, is about control of the Drugs Trade.
The murders hit the headlines but in the background is the fact that there are seven offences every single day involving firearms and I have no doubt that will keep increasing.

[trix]

There have to remain some protections for the young or the vulnerable.

What I would support is better guidelines on the application of the law, so that me and my friends cannot be given a criminal record for enjoying the use of the herb now and then, as long as we are responsible adults.

hev til agree wi ye there boozeburgler. too many hard drugs in iss toon an its a shame that e pot smokers hev til suffer while e smackheids roam aboot e streets. they are a danger til society an should be locked up...most o them are incommers anyway, corrupton wur bairns...

[Rheghead]

I saw a programme on the tv just recently that proposed that we should put heroine on prescription for all drug users to stop them going to dealers and committing crime to support their habit. Isn't that the same as proposing that we should give wayward kids a weekly allowance of sweets to stop them shoplifting in Woolworth's and pensioning off likely bank robbers so that they won't do the occasional heist?

[orkneylass]

I had no idea the sweets from Woolworths were addictive, mind altering drugs although overdosing on them can be unpleasant. We had better campaign to get them banned.

I saw a programme on the tv just recently that proposed that we should put heroine on prescription for all drug users to stop them going to dealers and committing crime to support their habit. Isn't that the same as proposing that we should give wayward kids a weekly allowance of sweets to stop them shoplifting in Woolworth's and pensioning off likely bank robbers so that they won't do the occasional heist?

[Rheghead]

I had no idea the sweets from Woolworths were addictive, mind altering drugs although overdosing on them can be unpleasant. We had better campaign to get them banned.

Sweets are addictive, I can never just have one jelly baby without finishing the whole bag, however, on the subject of drugs, the tv programme was very informative that drugs in their pure form were no more addictive/harmful than alcohol or tobacco.

Yes, ODing on sweets does harm your health in terms of dental and liver probs.