War on drugs failed, but what are options?
By Mark Arnold / Let's deal with marijuana first. Many argue that marijuana use is basically as benign as alcohol, which is technically defined as a drug, so why not legalize it? Most people reject this comparison because we rather enjoy our beverages. But by reducing the penalties for its use, the Legislature has recognized that marijuana is less harmful than other drugs and, additionally, that voters have legalized medical marijuana.
The more interesting debate is over legalizing all drugs. There is a broader, free-spirit argument that favors legalization of not just marijuana, but of all drugs. Why should the government protect people from themselves? Should government be paternalistic? The only ones who benefit from criminalization are drug dealers. Why not tax it and then regulate it to some extent?
Making it illegal certainly hasn't stopped drug abuse. The 35-year "war on drugs" could soon eclipse the record of some famous European battles. Dealers are the sole victors.
One hundred years ago in the Wild West, if someone abused drugs or alcohol, they did so at their own peril. If the town drunk wanted to drink himself to death, that was his choice. However, when he did so, he had to deal with the consequences; there was no government "help" to enable him down his destructive path.
Today, we have those who abuse drugs on a daily basis yet shun employment -- have their cake and eat it too. This needs to stop. If every kid growing up understood that using drugs was like jumping off a cliff -- that drugs lead directly to a miserable life and an early grave -- they would avoid drugs just as they do playing on the freeway. Policymaking "safety nets" must not encourage drug users.
There is a link between working and eating. There are consequences for your behavior and there is no need for governmental oversight.
On the other hand, we have the possibility (or inevitability, as may be argued) that legalization will exacerbate the use of drugs in an already plagued society. Our children and grandchildren would be tempted to experiment, or worse, become addicts -- an unacceptable scenario. Legalization will increase current usage and thus create an even greater societal problem. To further complicate matters, there is an argument that the disease of addiction involves more than an appreciation of consequences.
There are credible and interesting arguments on all sides. Milton Friedman, the conservative economist, has supported legalization for years. Law enforcement generally opposes legalization, but then again they are conflicted because they have received billions and billions of dollars over the years trying to enforce the laws. Still, no one can prove law enforcement wrong regarding the potential dangers of legalization.
In my view, the question comes down to three choices:
* Do we risk putting our communities in further peril by decriminalizing drugs?
* Do we risk continuing current drug laws that really haven't slowed the use of drugs?
* Do we invest in research to determine "why people use drugs in the first place" and in "prevention" measures?
This should be the public discourse.
Kern County Public Defender Mark Arnold has, for the past 14 years, served as chief representation for defendants who cannot afford their own defense. He recently announced he will retire in August.
