Why We Can't Legalize Drugs

We can't legalize drugs - despite political, economic, even survival pressures to do so - because of deep underlying American mindsets against drugs, the two primary ones being that we believe continuing drug use is, or causes, a disease, and that parents can't bear to imagine their kids taking drugs. As to the disease mindset, is is maintained and promoted by both pro- and anti-legalization proponents.

Mexico's national nightmare, in which drug cartels are overwhelming the country's law enforcement agencies, is the most serious political consequence to date of the current policy of "banning" drugs. (Banning is in quotes since drugs are all around us.) At the same time, California's multibillion dollar sales of marijuana can't be taxed while the State drowns in red ink. Yet the Obama Administration won't contemplate the possibility of legalizing marijuana. Why not?

Obama's selection of Seattle police chief R. Gil Kerlikowske as American Drug Czar signals the Obama team's rejection of the Bush emphasis on interdicting drug supplies and arresting drug users. VP Joe Biden introduced Kerlikowske with the invocation that "combating drugs requires a comprehensive approach that includes enforcement, prevention, and treatment." Kerlikowske himself noted, "The success of our efforts to reduce the flow of drugs is largely dependent on our ability to reduce demand for them."

But the major policy debate over drugs had already flown past the office of Drug Czar by the time Kerlikowske was selected. The infiltration of the America's domestic drug trafficking by Mexican cartels, illustrating both the porousness of our southern border and the continuing gargantuan illicit drug trade in the United States, now dominates American drug policy discussions. And the Obama Administration has indicated no slackening of American attacks on supplier nations' drug production and drug interdiction when it comes to this emergency.

Curtailing drug production and trafficking is an important motivation for Obama's expansion of the War in Afghanistan. And military options are the only ones being considered in the war that has erupted around Mexican drug commerce. The only issue being argued in Congressional hearings is how much to step up our military support of Mexican President Felipe Calderon. Changing American drug laws is simply not on the table. When MSNBC's Rachel Maddow interviewed Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, only military and border policing options were discussed.

Two incurable American prejudices rule out the idea that changing the legal status of drugs can impact an increasingly out-of-control world drug trade.

1. Drug use is an uncontrollable disease. In one striking way, opponents to American drug laws and defenders maintain the same idea -- drug use is a disease. For reformers, this supports the idea that users should be treated, and not imprisoned. This is behind former Senator Biden's introduction of the "Recognizing Addiction as a Disease Act of 2007," which states: "Addiction is a chronic, relapsing brain disease that is characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use, despite harmful consequences. It is considered a brain disease because drugs change the brain's structure. . . (as) seen in people who abuse drugs. . ."

And, hence, the purpose of the bill: changing the name of the National Institute on Drug Abuse to "National Institute on Diseases of Addiction." (Will this then include gambling?) Note Biden's segue from "addiction" to "abuse" above. So anyone who takes drugs -- like marijuana -- suffers from this disease? What about the large majority of people -- like the last three presidents -- who explore drugs (including not just marijuana) and move on? Will treating all such people as addicts really improve their and America's situation in regard to drugs?

One person who favors the coalescence of the terms "use," "abuse," and "addiction" is John Walters, Kerlikowske's predecessor as Drug Czar in the Bush Administration. But his purpose in doing so is to perpetuate drugs' pariah status. Defending the great success of his tenure, Walters argued strictly on disease lines in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that "Drug Legalization Isn't the Answer":

Substance abuse is a disease. Until recently, we failed to grasp the nature of this disease and how to reduce the suffering it causes. For decades, we did not want to believe that alcohol or drugs could have the power to take over our lives, despite the evidence we witnessed when our loved ones grappled with drug addiction. We did not understand how this disease could alter personality and steal individual freedom. We have paid a high price for this confusion.

Biden, Kerlikowske, Walters, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse maintain the same attitude towards drugs. Thus there will be no change from Bush to Obama in this regard.

2. Kids should never take drugs. Discussing drugs in response to the Mexican-American crisis today, Joe Scarborough introduced the idea of legalizing marijuana on MCNBC's Morning Joe show. Dr. Nancy Snyderman, NBC's medical expert and a cohost on the show, quickly and decisively answered, "No. Marijuana makes you dumb. It's plain and simple: I don't want my kids smoking dope" -- even though the large majority of teens will take drugs, drink illicitly, and be prescribed psychoactive medications.

And, so, illegal drug use extends endlessly on the horizon in front of us.

Comments

[ClarcKing]

In the U.S. we suffer from low and poor standards. It is in our thinking. The philosophy and perspective is corrupt. To melt before the drug tsunami is weak. There is no liberty in drug use; only enslavement. A liberty loving people could devise a campaign that communicated the deficiencies in the drug legalization movement, and the benefits of living a life drug free. There are many unrealized loses to the drug consumer, the family, the community, the health system, the productive economy through drug use. Many corporations demand blood or hair samples to be analyzed for drug use; A sure way to mark yourself for life; as a unemployable person. The International Drug syndicates are motivated in seeing our drug laws relaxed and/or legalized. A great amount of money is involved. A very sophisticated marketing campaign is created using websites, radio talk shows, movies, musician celebrities, etc. Academics, journalists, politicians, actors, entertainers, athletes, doctors, lawyers are all employed to broadcast the benefits legalized drug consumption for everyone. The American society is in shock right now and I am suspicious of the constant campaign for drug legalization at this time. The American population is in danger from their own inability to discern. However Americans do have great creative powers, we can clear the refuse before us and create a great society.

[Dolmance]

Obama can end the Drug War. And he better, because the US has essentially bred the most ruthless and enormous gang of criminals the world has ever seen, and the magnitude is only going to grow and grow until America becomes like much of the rest of the Western Hemisphere, including your own inner cities - a war zone.

This war will bring down Mexico. And when it does, prepare for the necessity of occupying that country for your own protection. And we'll just see how you like that.

[Stanton Peele - Huffpost Blogger]

This post, for whatever it's worth, says that fundamental contradictions in American attitudes - including drug policy reformers - around the disease nature of drug use,prevent us from changing drug policy. (HuffPo editors - isn't there a requirement that commenters actually read the posts?)

[CaptD]

The current President of Mexico has proposed just this idea and I hope that Mexico will adopt it ASAP; then perhaps the USA's lawmakers will be "financially forced" to see the POSITIVE changes that legalized drugs makes.

BTW: The BUSH War on Drugs has only resulted in helping fund the drug cartels, hiring ever more police, building ever more prisons and then filling them up (at a cost of at least $45,000+ per year per convict!) with "small fry"... and very Big business for the Police Union supported Political Candidates.

If Mexico did like many other Countries and legalized very small amount of pot/drugs sold by the "State" with an Rx, then the Cartels would be out of business and probably the use of crack and more dangerous drugs by their population would be drastically reduced....

[leonel]

The way drugs are likely to be legalized is by California taking a stepwise process to reduce penalties on marijuana, then make civil fine, then less and less. Other states will follow, I know New Mexico, Oregon, Washington can't wait. The problem is lawyers losing money but they can stand losing some business, no big deal. Second problem, what do police do with people smoking and driving. Third, children having easy access, even taking to school. Fourth, effect on people already abusing tobacco. On the job use is also a problem. Marijuana use itself has been already all over for 30 years, but there will be unknown consequences of doing openly, so drug reform has to be slow and cautious. For actually dangerous and highly addictive drugs like cocaine, heroin, speed and others yet to be discovered, there is practically no chance to legalize but decriminalization is inevitable. Not much of a lobby group behind legalizing cocaine, etc. I understand chewing coca leafs is like the highs Americans get on coffee. Don't know, never tried.

[tracerhaha1]

i agree that the lawyers will worry about losing money. As to you second point it should be considered impaired driving or driving under the influence. For your third point children already have easy access to drugs and they already take them to school.

[TIME]

The lesson of prohibition is still valid. Once legal, Americans will become the producers. Laws and taxes can help determine where a product comes from. It will be hard for these drug lords to risk jail, or death if people stop asking them for their product. Users need their products now, because there are no other means of obtaining their drugs. Competition (capitalistic sources) can kill off these drug lords. The problems of drug use and abuse will not stop because of legalization, but the criminal factor and the problems that come with criminals being in charge of a wanted product, will end. That's ending a HUGE problem. So big that it's starting to become a national security issue. It's time to legalize.

[karl g jones]

This article could have used a good proofreader.

(1) " ... the current policy of "banning" drugs. (Banning is in parentheses since drugs are all around us.)"

Banning is not in parentheses -- it's in quote marks ("banning").

(2) "And, hence, the purpose of the bill: changing the name of the National Institute on Drug Abuse to "National Institute on Diseases of Addiction." (Will this then include gambling?) Note the segueing from "addiction" to "abuse.""

The segue is not from "addiction" to "abuse" -- it's the other way around.

- kgj

[Stanton Peele - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks! - Although I did mean segue from addiction to abuse -- on the part of Biden's bill.

[tbone99]

Drugs are useful partly because they show you within your own mind just how many perspectives are possible. Once you experience this, your mental and emotional intelligence are vastly superior to someone who who refuses to consider how there could be a veiwpoint other than the one they have.

Prescription drugs are are just as addictive if not more so than marijuana - and the quantity of
antihistimines, sleeping pills, anti depressants, anti anxiety etc drugs that is found in our drinking water suggests we have a huge problem with living life without a little "help".

Why should some people's "help" to get through the day be punished with prison while others mix and match with gusto?

[wheresthebeef]

Marijuana make you dumb? It might bring out latent tendencies toward dumbness, but I've never heard of any scientific evidence to support the ides that smoking weed reduces ones' intelligence, even after prolonged use. Our current drug laws seem to be based on some (selective) sense of morality, and not on any rational body of evidence. Legalize them, tax them, put more resources into treatment of addiction, punish appropriately those who commit crimes under their influence and we'd cut the thug drug cartels off at the knees.

[BlackJAC]

The "thug drug cartels" wouldn't be "cut off at the knees" upon legalization. They'd just reorganize into legitimate corporations because they have a hammerlock on production. They'd actually save money once spent on all the smuggling shenanigans--why waste cash on AWACS-evading go-fast boats when you can just fill a shipping container and load that onto a legit cargo ship?--assuming they don't invest in lobbyists and underwrite Congressional election campaigns like any other industry. And they could dump all their money into banks rather than stockpile it and risk it getting eaten by rats.

[TIME]

"like any other industry"

That's right.

Are you suggesting we should dispose of the usual capitalistic way business does business, or is it only "drug" stores that should not be allowed to do business like everyone else?

Is it the abuse of legal drugs that would have us stop selling prescription drugs?

Being illegal, prohibits the normal competitive process. Once legal, Americans would become the producers.

We have already learned this lesson of History. Prohibition was not just the wrong answer for our grandparents, it's a bad answer for any generation, because we are still human.