page 3 Where do we draw the line? Uppers and downers, amphetamines and barbiturates can be found in most households medicine cabinets. Drugs are already legal in this country and fraudulent prescriptions are big business. Yet, some of our legislators will say, "to hell with it, lets make it even easier for em to drop off, beam up and freak out". But, keep in mind, those "em" that they're talking about happens to be our future because America's future rests with our young. Legalization of drugs calls for a forecasts of a very dim future, it would insure America a future of space cadets that NASA wouldn't touch. Nor would Med School, Law School, Science and Technology, Aviation, or any other institute of higher learning and achievement, because, drug addicts are detrimental to themselves and to others. Drug addiction is a sickness in which there would not be enough hospitals in America to treat if legalization existed. Then too, what drugs are we talking about legalizing?? Heroin? Cocaine? What about PCP? Maybe a little Acid? Where will the line be drawn, and why would it be drawn there? There are many people who fought like hell against the hint of legalizing reefer, yet, suddenly, the thought of putting the real thing on the market isn't too far It's really frightening. Have we seriously looked at the First of all, fetched. long and short term ramifications of such a move? Doctors would be in demand like never before even though there is a shortage of Doctors, and not to mention nurses, all across this country. Little clinics would spring up like liquor stores, on every corner, ready to distribute prescriptions for poison. The wino's we see every morning, on corners in front of liquor stores waiting for them to open, would hold no comparison to the line of dope fiends that 95-568 - 89 - 6 page 4 would be waiting outside of the little clinics and Doctors offices on any given day. "Hit the pipe", or "Take a fix" and call me in the morning, would become a routine response. Finally, compared to the percentage of our population who abuse drugs, only a small percentage are as fortunate as I am to find the strength to prevail and overcome my addiction, and to grow. For anyone to speak in favor of any legislation which would legalize this deadly poison in a false attempt to control the supply and demand shows a critical lack of perception and insight into the problem of drug abuse. It further shows an insensitivity equal to those who currently controls the flow of drugs into this country. Legalization of drugs would be one more step towards perpetuation of evil influence over the people instead of a more progressive step towards addressing the socio-economic problems facing the people, such as poverty, lack of education, lack of sufficient health care, lack of adequate housing in poverty stricken communities which are dumping grounds for drug dealers; all of these things which makes a person eager to escape into the tranquil oblivion of drug abuse; teen pregnancy, child abuse, incest, and oh yes, the very rich, but very bored, depression, mental illness, mental retardation; I could go on and on. Not to address these conditions is certainly a sin against mankind, but to add to these problems would be a sin against God because it would be an overt move towards destruction of mankind. Drug abuse weakens the mind and destroys the will of those who fall victim to it. America should wage a real war against drugs, using any means necessary to prevent them from entering our ports and crossing our borders. Think about it! A SCENARIO FOR ENLIGHTENED DRUG POLICY [Copyright 1988, Richard B. Karel] [Presentation to the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, September 29, 1988. U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.] I was recommended to this committee because of a scenario originally presented to the Baltimore Commissioner of Health earlier this year. I am a journalist, not a politician or public official. Although my opinions and policy formulations have evolved over 15 years, this particular policy paper was formulated in response to the tough questions posed by Rep. Rangel. In my unabridged policy paper, I have addressed in great detail regulation, taxation and control of drugs. Let us soberly examine the possibility that a sensible and morally defensible approach to psychoactive substances must focus on legitimate distinctions based upon the intrinsic pharmacology of each substance and the application of regulatory and fiscal mechanisms designed to protect the public health. I believe I share the goals of Rep. Rangel and others, and believe sincerely that current policy is highly counterproductive. "Legalization" is an emotionally charged word, implying, for many, legitimization. My approach is, in fact, not across the board legalization. Indeed, I suggest that the more dangerous forms of illicit drugs remain prohibited to various degrees, and that we focus on ways of making legally available less harmful forms of some substances. I also recommend restrictions on age, advertising and points of distribution, and, in some instances, rationing amounts sold per person within a set period of time. In brief, my recommendations are merely a variation on the concept of using both a carrot and a stick. The carrot is making available less harmful forms. of certain currently illicit drugs in order to draw people away from more harmful substances. The stick is retention of legal penalties on use and sale of other drugs and forms of drugs. Whenever the issue of legalizing any of the currently illicit drugs arises, people point with fear to the high costs of alcohol legalization and the supposedly forgotten lessen that despite crime and violence, public health improved dramatically during Frohibition. There is however, another even more dimly recalled lessen of the Prohibition era, and that is that during the same period we in America were criminalizing alcohol to fight the negative health consequences of abuse, Great Britain was attacking the same problem through a combination of higher taxes, rationing and limited hours of distribution. When the Volstead Act was repealed in America, it did not take long for alcohol use and abuse to rise - once again, and along with it alcohol related health problems such cirrhosis of the liver. as In Great Britain, on the other hand, alcohol related health problems declined steadily during our Prohibition era and leveled off. They have remained relatively low ever since. Interestingly, the most recent study on cirrhosis in the U.S. indicates a steady decline in the last decade. We are not sure why, but speculation centers on the general American trend toward exercise and health. In the United States, we have seen education, labeling and enforcement of restricted sales of tobacco to minors greatly cut tobacco use and related health problems. No prohibition is necessary, and few think it advisable. Let us keep this evidence in mind when we consider regulation and control of illicit drugs. My recommendations are based on the concept of making regulatory distinctions between different drugs and forms of drugs, and applying a combination of fiscal and regulatory mechanisms to protect the public health. With prohibition concentrated on keeping substances such as crack and PCP away from the public, particularly children. and on keeping clinically controlled drugs from being diverted, law enforcement would finally have both a moral justification and a practical focus working in its favor. I would be happy to provide examples of specific regulatory approaches during the question and answer period. A SCENARIO FOR ENLIGHTENED DRUG POLICY Copyright 1982 [Prepared for House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control hearing, September 29, 1988] INTRODUCTION The suggestion that some form of legalization of illicit drugs be seriously In order to conduct a reasoned and intelligent discussion of this issue, it is Support for serious consideration of legalization extends across the political It is my opinion that at some juncture. some form of legalization will become a reality. It is my concern that if we do not carefully consider all the problems inherent in various legalization scenarios. and answer the many questions raised regarding legalization, we may create an unwieldy and incoherent system. At a drug policy workshop in August under the auspices of Mayor Kurt Schmoke, Second, good ethics are practical ethics. Third, Royal observed that legislated is not entirely accurate, pointing to the impact of civil rights legislation in changing public conceptions of what is right and wrong regarding the treatment of minorities. Finally, and not insubstantially, he noted that there is a strong and constant tension between Americans' desire to be protected from a variety of dangers, and their respect for what president Ronald Reagan recently called "the right to march to a different drummer." I am neither politician ner public official, but I believe that an unwillingness to examine dispassionate!, evidence bearing on the legalization issue is bad policy, and ultimately a disservice to the public. In some cases, misinformation may temporarily deflect public attention from consideration of legalization as a serious polic option. It will not, however, make the issue go away. Let me briefly offer two examples of what appear to be at best careless, and Everyone with whom I have come in contact agrees with Fep. Charles Farvel that "for too long we have ignored the root cause, failing to see the connection between drugs and hopelessness. helplessness and despair." The suggestion that individuals considering the legalization option are somehow insensitive to that connection. and are ready to write off the disadvantaged youth of the inner city is simply incorrect. Ironically, ran, proponents of legalization, such as Professor Ethan Nadelmann of Princeton. make a large cart of their Case precisely on grounds that it is the poor and disadvantaged who are suffering most grie.susly from ar approach that stresses law enforcement ver public health. Another point that has become muddled is the existence of two separate "drug problems." The drug problem of the socio-economically depressed inner cities is indeed linked to hopelessness and despair. Hopelessness and despair, however, do not account for the huge numbers of affluent, middle-class citizens who occasionally use drugs such as cocaine and marijuana on a recreational basis and who otherwise are no different from their non drug using counterparts. At some level, individuals on both sides of the legalization debate must find No one has all the answers, but Rep. Rangel, Chairman of the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, has done a superb job of posing a host of important questions. While in the process of preparation of this manuscript, I was warned by a would be deliberately distorted by Rep. Rangel and others. I was warned that by taking Rep. Rangel's list of questions at face value, and presenting a coherent vision of how legalization might work, I was "falling into his trap." Let me note that I hold Charlie Rangel in the highest regard. He has been a tireless fighter for the rights of the underclass, and a tough but compassionate legislator. It would be most unfortunate for all parties if anything other than a sober and dispassionate consideration of the evidence should occur. While this manuscript has been adapted with a specific focus towards the recommendations from those made to Mayor Schmoke's August 4 workshop. As a means of focusing on the very pivotal concerns raised by the prospect of legalization, I begin with a brief restatement of the questions framed by Rep. Rangel. ( 1. Which narcotic and psychotropic drugs should be legalized? On what 3. 2. Should narcotic and psychotropic drugs be made available to anyone who wishes to try them or just to people already dependent upon them? Should drugs be available to anyone, including children? Should there be an age requirement and, if so, what age? 4. Would an unlimited supply be made available to habitual users or addicts? Or would they have to pay the market price, even for drugs where an increasing tolerance would require the purchase of ever larger quantities? Could those heavily dependent or addicted work or even hold a job? Or would they resort. to crime to support their legal habit and to provide livelihood for themselves and their dependents? 5. Who would provide drugs? Private companies? The government? Would they be provided at cost, for a profit, or be subject to a tax? If taxed, what would be a fair rate? 6. Where would drugs be made available? Clinics? Pharmacies? Supermarkets? Special Since 7. Would drug use by employees in certain occupations be proscribed? 8. What rate of addiction and dependency would you project if drugs were legalized and thereby cheaper and more readily available? Wouldn't cheap and readily available legal drugs result in more people using more drugs? What would you project the accidental drug-related death rate to be? 9. What is the opinion of medical experts as to the potential effects of 10. Have you asked your personal physician whether he would recommend that you, members of your family or anyone experiment with drugs? Would he recommend regular recreational use? 11. Would legalization affect medical insurance rates and the overall cost of health care? 12. Would we be spreading AIDS by having more addicts using more needles? |