There is an interesting article in today's Washington Post. The article, entitled, "It's Time to Legalize Drugs," by Peter Moskos and Stanford "Neill" Franklin is representative of a growing public opinion regarding drugs and more particularly, an opinion on our historically moralistic public policy on addressing their use. Although I am an advocate of changes in this policy, I am not sure the views expressed in the Post article are in our best interest as a country in the long run. Allow me to first comment on the positive points the authors make...there are two:

1. If drugs were legal then drugs could be prepared like any other commodity. This would move production out of the back alley and place it under the scrutiny of some regulatory body that could ensure that what is sold in Philly is the same as what is sold in DC as in LA, etc. In short, there is something to be said for regulating production from a harm reduction point of view...less harm to the individual who consumes the drug and less harm (most likely in the form of financial savings) to the public when it does not have to pay for the consequences of consuming “bad” drugs.

2. There is a lot of money to be saved and made by legalizing drugs. Regarding savings, the billions of dollars are no longer spent on interdiction and other law enforcement efforts to stop manufacture and distribution, to prosecute offenders, to incarcerate offenders, etc. Regarding earning, the state and federal taxes to be collected. Ironically, most drugs of abuse could be manufactured inexpensively and then taxed in an outrageous fashion and still be no more expensive to the consumer than they are now.

As attractive as these two “benefits” of legalization may be, they do not, however, off-set the potential consequences. The biggest “drug problems” we have in this country—and likely this is true around the world—is with those drugs that are already legal...alcohol (ethanol) and tobacco (nicotine). These substances are regulated and taxed yet they are together many times more costly to us as a nation than all illicit drug use combined. This is to suggest that making substances “legal” is not to redeem the country or any of its residents from the consequences associated with the use of the now legal drugs. Add to this that some of the more popular illicit drugs of abuse, namely prescription drugs taken without a prescription, are already legal and this just adds to the argument that legalization is not, in and of itself, a solution to "the drug problem."

I liken legalization of drugs as a solution to building more roads to solve the traffic problem. There may be an immediate beneficial result from the effort, but as driving becomes easier, more individuals will choose to drive and this leads to more vehicles on the road, which results eventually in a return of the original traffic problem. Legalization may appear to be a fix, but it would be a band aid on a major, hemorrhaging wound, addiction and other substance use disorders. True, marijuana would probably result in far more people “using” the substance than “abusing,” it, something on a par with alcohol, but consider that 10% of drinkers consume 50% of all alcohol consumed and you can begin to see how even small percentages of “problem users” can result in significant problems for individuals, families, and the society as a whole.

I believe a better solution is something akin to what the Netherlands did 30 years ago and Portugal, Mexico, British Columbia, and other countries are experimenting with today...decriminalization. True, this does not do much to solve the problem of “quality control” problems in the production of drugs—and this is no small problem as regulating production with something like the FDA is probably “the” strongest argument for legalization. What decriminalization does do, however, is it allows us to continue to address substance use as a public health problem where addressing the “agent” (the drugs), “host” (individual who chooses to use the drugs), and “environment” (where the drugs are used, etc.) becomes the focus and prevention of and intervention with use, not interdiction in “the war on drugs,” is the issue of primacy.

When interdiction ceases to be the predominant response to substance use disorders, prevention and treatment can take over that position. When the demand drops then the consequences associated with consumption—especially clandestine and surreptitious consumption—will likely be reduced. Just as we do not prosecute and incarcerate those who consume “trans fats” or “empty calorie” processed foods, neither should we prosecute individuals with substance use disorders.

Drugs, that is, substances with psychoactive properties have been around longer than have we humans who at times seem preoccupied with consuming them. This means that drugs are neither good nor bad, they “just are.” It is the way these drugs are used that determines if they are problematic of not, that is, “a social problem,” and as with all social problems, they are a social construction. This means that a social issue only becomes a problem when a majority of those in power in the society in which the social issue is occurring deem the issue to be problematic. For example, most people do not argue that “child abuse” or “driving while intoxicated” are “social problems.” Interestingly, though, prior to the 1960’s you did not hear about “child abuse” and prior to the 1980 you did not hear much about “drinking and driving.” This does not mean that these issues did not exist, they just were not deemed problematic by the society in which they occurred and were therefore not denoted as “social problems.”

Take “abortion” or “smoking marijuana” on the other hand and there is great debate as to whether or not either or both of these is a “social problem” because there is no consensus on either issue. Consequently, until and unless a majority of individuals in power clearly decide one way or the other, the debate will continue. Probably the clearest example of this is the slow but inexorable growth of the temperance movement in the 19th century into a movement that transformed “drunkenness” from the social problem to “alcohol itself” as the social problem and resulted in the passage of the 18th amendment in 1920. For 13 years, “alcohol” was a social problem...just as “drugs” have been since the Harrison Act was passed in the early part of the 20th century—but even that had an interesting twist in that it was not concern about the use of drugs, but racism that resulted in the passage of early drug laws...certain ethic groups tended to use certain drugs so in an effort to “get rid of the racial problem,” their drugs of choice were made illegal in order to legitimize persecution...but this is another story (see “Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How They Became That Way,” available on Youtube).

In any event, I “hear” the argument of the authors of the Post article and I “feel” their frustration, I just do not “buy” their reasoning for legalizing drugs. One thing is certain, however, and that is the old “war on drugs” approach to dealing with psychoactive substances is going to go the way of the dinosaur...its just a question if that will be with a cataclysmic event that results in mass extinction of something more “evolutionary.”

What do you think?