Some thoughts in the light of a new day:
But I wonder what activity these folks will then engage in in order to remain "illegal" and rebellious? What will replace currently illegal drugs as they search for something more illicit and dangerous in order to prove how "bad" they are?
If you look at the Netherlands as an example, there is little or no direct replacement of criminalized drugs with other crime. It's the only direct experiment I know of, and I know it well after living there for two years. Imagine if ghetto crack dealers no longer made money on the street corner. What else could they offer with similar demand? Nothing I can think of. They are out of business as bad guys.
Also, what price will we pay by making drugs legal and their access routine for legal users? Can anyone really be a "social user" of such addictive drugs?
As E noted, we would save tens of billions in law enforcement and prison costs. So any other unexpected costs can be offset easily, i.e. building more treatment centers. Remember, all those addicts can ALREADY get all the drugs they can pay for. I would be surprised to see any increase in the total number of addicts. Compared to alcohol and tobacco addiction, I don't see how the costs would be any worse than present.
And what will be the cost socially and economically from such a level of permissiveness? Will the government guarantee the lowest possible price for drug users, or will they still face the problem (being primarily poor and minority) of coming up with the cash to get their daily "fix"?
No simple answer to that one. The drugs would be cheaper, that is for sure, once the criminal cost premium is taken out. Certainly the need to commit crimes for drug cash would go down with lower price. And again, the question of permissiveness is moot since drug users buy and use drugs easily today.
I can certainly understand the pragmatic side of just acknowledging that certain people are always going to be living on the "fringe" and breaking social norms of behavior and thus, the allure of drug legalization/liberalization.
It's more than an idealistic or emotional step. It's a public policy question of how we deploy tens of billions of dollars in public resources, wisely for in an act of futility.
But don't we have to ask ourselves whether enabling such social irresponsibility is not to the detriment of those of us who operate within mutually beneficial social norms of behavior?
The social irresponsibility has been 98% enabled in the current system. The point is moot. Would you rather have a drug addict carjacking you for a fix, or sitting on the curb outside a government-authorized drug outlet, too stoned to move? How about having him in a free treatment center, paid for with the budget that used to go for busting petty dealers?
What's the cost to the rest of society of saying "It's OK to be addicted?"
What's the cost now for saying "We can stop all illegal drug production, importation, sales and use" and failing miserably despite decades of our best efforts? No one is condoning addiction. But addiction exists now while drugs are illegal. Don't you want a better chance to reduce crime and addiction?
The current system offers no hope that the drug scene will ever be any different than today, or like it was in 1975. |
