Readers weigh in on legalizing drugs
I read with interest your commentary, Legalizing drugs: The money argument, in Tuesday's Baltimore Sun. You pointed out the possible savings if drug sales and use were legalized. I noticed on page 13 of the same Sun edition an article by Kelly Brewington, Young adults hit by mental health issues, in which a study was cited that showed that alcohol abuse and dependency were common among 20% of college students. . . . . Has anyone totaled the cost in dollars and in misery of alcohol abuse and dependency since the repeal of the Volstead Act in 1933, which had again made alcoholic beverages legal in the United States? Perhaps we should work to reduce the consumption of alcoholic beverages, much like we have done for tobacco use. I would be in favor of intense educational programs designed to warn against the use of alcohol, the banning of alcohol related advertisements in any medium, and even the passing of a law similar to the Volstead Act.
Bob Knapp
Won’t freeing up $80B annually in cost savings and revenues provide a source of funds for treatment that is currently being wasted on the War on Drugs? In fact, a peace dividend of 10% or $8B annually, is probably more than enough. The balance can be used to shore up the balance sheets of the US and the States which are becoming less and less healthy every time some bailout is deemed necessary.
John D. Hall
I would like to see a nationwide series of clinics established, under the auspices of the United States Public Health Service, where a drug addict can register and receive the drug to which he or she is addicted. The drug should be dispensed and administered at the clinic - in large, affected, urban areas ancillary clinics need to be established - and at no cost to the addict. The clinics should have more of a social service aspect, rather than the medical model, and the medical coverage of the addicts' problems and drug dosage levels could be monitored by nurse-practitioners and physician's assistants. . . . My first goal here is simply to cut down on the senseless daily crime that occurs when a penniless addict is searching for the price of a fix. Secondly, the registration of the addict puts him on a form of bridge to possible treatment and rehabilitation. I do not believe we could, or should, limit how long the addict stays on this bridge but I'm given to understand that certain addicts reach a point where a spontaneous desire for treatment and rehab' is reached. The clinics must have the liaison people to introduce the various and suitable approaches, for that individual, to enter treatment and rehab'. . . . I do not advocate a free market for drugs and drug dealing should be severely dealt with. I assume there would be an increase in inter drug-gang warfare as a declining street market is foreseen. There obviously will always be someone seeking street level drugs for recreational purposes and because their social and economic positions dictate it. But, if we can get the greater part of the addicted population under some form of control, many social benefits can be obtained and the work of many police forces reduced.
Donald T Hart
Baltimore
It may generate revenue, but it won't solve the crime problem. MJ growers will simply sell their product cheaper. And will minors be allowed to buy hard drugs? If not, the dealers will target them. So we will still be spending $ on enforcement and jails. Don't forget to throw that into the equation.
William D. Roessler
Deputy State's Attorney
Anne Arundel County State's Attorney's Office
I totally disagree with your final statement: "Make heroin and coke legal and we'd have more addicts...." I believe that the main reason that non drug abusers don't use drugs has more to do with the fact that we (yes I am including myself in this group) know the ravaging effects that drugs have on the human body. The fact that drugs are illegal is a deterrent, but a mild one at best. If coke and heroin were made legal, we would still elect to not use drugs. Of course, you will always have a few who would use legality as an excuse to use. I believe that total to be negligible. . . . Throwing money at the problem DOES NOT WORK! This country has been doing that for forty years. Has the drug problem gotten better? On the contrary, it's only gotten worse. I believe that legalization and regulation is the only answer. . . . . I am a 54-year-old Black man who has lived in Baltimore my whole life. I have seen several generations of young Blacks and Whites succumb to the lure of the drug world. The main attraction is the money. The vast majority do not use. How can you persuade them to work for minimum wage when they can make thousands a week selling drugs? . . . When Kurt Schmoke first touched on his legalization and regulation idea, the public was outraged. People thought that you would be able to buy your drugs at every corner store or at the 7-11. The mere mention of legalization was political suicide. Because of that, no elected leader will come near the issue. But I see it as the only solution. It will take a strong person to withstand the inevitable waterfall criticism that championing this health related approach will bring. Most politicians are more concerned about being reelected than tackling a thorny issue like this. . . . Forty years of throwing our money at this problem and the situation has only gotten worse. What better reason to shift gears. Thanks for letting me rant.
Eric Grandy
I appreciate your concern about the possibility of increased drug
addiction under a system of strict regulation (legalization) and I
believe - after more than a decade of research - that it isn't true.
A brief summary of some of the relevant data (there's much more,
including our own history circa 1900) is at:
Drug Use, Abuse and Dependence (Addiction) In America
http://www.dpft.org/duia.htm
http://www.dpft.org/duianotes.htm
The data is mostly from 2006 but it is virtually identical for 2002
(new system begun) through 2007. Rarely discussed at length are two related points.
Even if there were to be some increase:
- the harm done by addiction both to the addict and to society would
be greatly reduced
- the harm done by the side effects of prohibition is hugely greater
than the harm done by addiction to prohibited drugs
If any of this is of interest, I'd be glad to chat with you and
discuss this complex and vexing problem on or off the air.
Jerry Epstein
Co founder and Researcher for
Drug Policy Forum of Texas (DPFT)
http://www.dpft.org/
We put people in jail at a rate almost 10 times that in Europe. And of course we pay for it.
It's a bad deal for us. Something's not a little wrong here, it's a lot wrong.
Doug
An alternative solution that I’ve read about (somewhere…) would be even more radical, but possibly even more effective. This would be for the government to buy up the whole poppy crop from Afghanistan and other drug-producing countries, and refine it into a pure, reliably-dosed product, which could then be offered free of charge to addicts. The only catch would be that the addicts would have to come inside a certain building (the “Drug Addiction Maintenance and Treatment Center of Hamilton“, or whatever it might be called) to get their fix. Needles would of course be sterile and used only once. (A really good way to reduce the transmission of HIV!) Treatment would be offered at each visit, but never coerced. . . . The beauty of this idea is that the bottom would immediately drop out of the market for street drugs. The illicit supply would be scant, because the government would have bought it all. And with “free” being the going price, who would pay the very steep price for the illicit supply? Dealers would be forced out of business in a hurry. Also, new users would be extremely few. Most new users are “hooked” by dealers who offer free samples. Once they become addicted, then they have to pay. If the dealers are out of business, then there would be no free samples. Of course, a person who has never tried a drug could always walk into the “Center” and get the drug for free, but who would actually do that? My guess is that the stigma of entering the building would deter new users, but the price advantage would outweigh the stigma for most if not all addicts. . . . Anyhow, I thought this was a nifty idea that will probably never happen, because of prevailing “morality”- based ideas of how drug addicts should be dealt with. As a physician who treats drug addicts often, I know (as do you) that they can be wonderful people who have simply lost control of their lives due to their addictions. Moralizing helps nobody. I hope that someday, the only consideration will be whether or not a drug treatment or prevention strategy actually works. Linda Olding, MD
Bob Knapp
Won’t freeing up $80B annually in cost savings and revenues provide a source of funds for treatment that is currently being wasted on the War on Drugs? In fact, a peace dividend of 10% or $8B annually, is probably more than enough. The balance can be used to shore up the balance sheets of the US and the States which are becoming less and less healthy every time some bailout is deemed necessary.
John D. Hall
I would like to see a nationwide series of clinics established, under the auspices of the United States Public Health Service, where a drug addict can register and receive the drug to which he or she is addicted. The drug should be dispensed and administered at the clinic - in large, affected, urban areas ancillary clinics need to be established - and at no cost to the addict. The clinics should have more of a social service aspect, rather than the medical model, and the medical coverage of the addicts' problems and drug dosage levels could be monitored by nurse-practitioners and physician's assistants. . . . My first goal here is simply to cut down on the senseless daily crime that occurs when a penniless addict is searching for the price of a fix. Secondly, the registration of the addict puts him on a form of bridge to possible treatment and rehabilitation. I do not believe we could, or should, limit how long the addict stays on this bridge but I'm given to understand that certain addicts reach a point where a spontaneous desire for treatment and rehab' is reached. The clinics must have the liaison people to introduce the various and suitable approaches, for that individual, to enter treatment and rehab'. . . . I do not advocate a free market for drugs and drug dealing should be severely dealt with. I assume there would be an increase in inter drug-gang warfare as a declining street market is foreseen. There obviously will always be someone seeking street level drugs for recreational purposes and because their social and economic positions dictate it. But, if we can get the greater part of the addicted population under some form of control, many social benefits can be obtained and the work of many police forces reduced.
Donald T Hart
Baltimore
It may generate revenue, but it won't solve the crime problem. MJ growers will simply sell their product cheaper. And will minors be allowed to buy hard drugs? If not, the dealers will target them. So we will still be spending $ on enforcement and jails. Don't forget to throw that into the equation.
William D. Roessler
Deputy State's Attorney
Anne Arundel County State's Attorney's Office
I totally disagree with your final statement: "Make heroin and coke legal and we'd have more addicts...." I believe that the main reason that non drug abusers don't use drugs has more to do with the fact that we (yes I am including myself in this group) know the ravaging effects that drugs have on the human body. The fact that drugs are illegal is a deterrent, but a mild one at best. If coke and heroin were made legal, we would still elect to not use drugs. Of course, you will always have a few who would use legality as an excuse to use. I believe that total to be negligible. . . . Throwing money at the problem DOES NOT WORK! This country has been doing that for forty years. Has the drug problem gotten better? On the contrary, it's only gotten worse. I believe that legalization and regulation is the only answer. . . . . I am a 54-year-old Black man who has lived in Baltimore my whole life. I have seen several generations of young Blacks and Whites succumb to the lure of the drug world. The main attraction is the money. The vast majority do not use. How can you persuade them to work for minimum wage when they can make thousands a week selling drugs? . . . When Kurt Schmoke first touched on his legalization and regulation idea, the public was outraged. People thought that you would be able to buy your drugs at every corner store or at the 7-11. The mere mention of legalization was political suicide. Because of that, no elected leader will come near the issue. But I see it as the only solution. It will take a strong person to withstand the inevitable waterfall criticism that championing this health related approach will bring. Most politicians are more concerned about being reelected than tackling a thorny issue like this. . . . Forty years of throwing our money at this problem and the situation has only gotten worse. What better reason to shift gears. Thanks for letting me rant.
Eric Grandy
I appreciate your concern about the possibility of increased drug
addiction under a system of strict regulation (legalization) and I
believe - after more than a decade of research - that it isn't true.
A brief summary of some of the relevant data (there's much more,
including our own history circa 1900) is at:
Drug Use, Abuse and Dependence (Addiction) In America
http://www.dpft.org/duia.htm
http://www.dpft.org/duianotes.htm
The data is mostly from 2006 but it is virtually identical for 2002
(new system begun) through 2007. Rarely discussed at length are two related points.
Even if there were to be some increase:
- the harm done by addiction both to the addict and to society would
be greatly reduced
- the harm done by the side effects of prohibition is hugely greater
than the harm done by addiction to prohibited drugs
If any of this is of interest, I'd be glad to chat with you and
discuss this complex and vexing problem on or off the air.
Jerry Epstein
Co founder and Researcher for
Drug Policy Forum of Texas (DPFT)
http://www.dpft.org/
We put people in jail at a rate almost 10 times that in Europe. And of course we pay for it.
It's a bad deal for us. Something's not a little wrong here, it's a lot wrong.
Doug
An alternative solution that I’ve read about (somewhere…) would be even more radical, but possibly even more effective. This would be for the government to buy up the whole poppy crop from Afghanistan and other drug-producing countries, and refine it into a pure, reliably-dosed product, which could then be offered free of charge to addicts. The only catch would be that the addicts would have to come inside a certain building (the “Drug Addiction Maintenance and Treatment Center of Hamilton“, or whatever it might be called) to get their fix. Needles would of course be sterile and used only once. (A really good way to reduce the transmission of HIV!) Treatment would be offered at each visit, but never coerced. . . . The beauty of this idea is that the bottom would immediately drop out of the market for street drugs. The illicit supply would be scant, because the government would have bought it all. And with “free” being the going price, who would pay the very steep price for the illicit supply? Dealers would be forced out of business in a hurry. Also, new users would be extremely few. Most new users are “hooked” by dealers who offer free samples. Once they become addicted, then they have to pay. If the dealers are out of business, then there would be no free samples. Of course, a person who has never tried a drug could always walk into the “Center” and get the drug for free, but who would actually do that? My guess is that the stigma of entering the building would deter new users, but the price advantage would outweigh the stigma for most if not all addicts. . . . Anyhow, I thought this was a nifty idea that will probably never happen, because of prevailing “morality”- based ideas of how drug addicts should be dealt with. As a physician who treats drug addicts often, I know (as do you) that they can be wonderful people who have simply lost control of their lives due to their addictions. Moralizing helps nobody. I hope that someday, the only consideration will be whether or not a drug treatment or prevention strategy actually works. Linda Olding, MD
