By Donald Topping
Dr. Jocelyn Elders spoke the unspeakable. A presidential appointee and the Surgeon General of our nation, Elders publicly uttered the "L" word...Legalization. Her modest proposal to study the possibility of drug legalization propelled her from relative obscurity to front-page banners, and generated a flood of swift reactions across the land, from vitriolic denunciations (including a knee-jerk rebuke from her boss, Bill Clinton) to strong support.
Will her proposal bring action, or will the country -- Hawaii included -- continue the relentless, and some say futile quest for a drug-free society through the War on Drugs?
Dr. Elders was talking about crime, and how to reduce it. She was not talking about the crime of taking illegal drugs, but rather the business of drugs: government subsidized crime due to drug prohibition.
Dr. Elders correctly stated that much of America's violent crime stems from the prohibition of certain drugs. Clearly, drugs themselves do not generate crime. Rather, it is the control of drugs -- the buying and selling in an underground market created by federal and state laws -- that generates and perpetuates crime. The result is a civil war in which citizens are fighting against government and among themselves for market control.
Although Hawai`i has not yet developed any `war zones' where shoot-outs are common on the streets, we are not free of problems. There have been dozens of drug-related murders. Crimes against property have risen dramatically. Our courts and prisons are overcrowded with drug offenders of many types.
And the seemingly futile efforts to suppress and control are costing us an arm and a leg. The exact dollar figures for enforcing the current drug policies are elusive, since there are so many different sources of taxpayer funding and so many agencies involved. According to an October 1993 report from the Office of National Drug Policy, Hawai`i spent over $35 million in 1991 in State funds alone. Add to this the undetermined millions of federal funds spent on interdiction, surveillance and prosecution in Hawai`i, and the result is a large-scale business supported by our tax dollars, an overburdened judicial system, and dangerously overcrowded prisons. Hawai`i's prison population has doubled during the last decade, owing largely to drug-related offenders, creating a condition of deteriorating health conditions among the inmate population.
Hawai`i also pays significant social costs by following the current policies. There are the health risks that come from black market drugs: overdoses from unknown quantity and purity of drugs, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis-B, malnutrition.
There is also the social cost of increased drug-related crime which, according to opinion polls, is the number one concern of citizens everywhere. These costs can be measured in dollars lost through theft and robbery, as well as the expense of policing, eradication, court procedures and incarceration. Less easy to measure, but equally real, is the social cost of increased violence. This in turn leads to more policing and public acceptance of a police-state mentality, which supports covert spying, sting operations, invasion of privacy, search and seizure, and general erosion of basic civil rights.
Not to be overlooked among the social costs is the growing alienation, skepticism and cynicism among youth who are subjected to distorted information about the dangers of drugs through the many drug-education programs in the schools, while at the same time are deluged with advertisements designed to promote the deadliest drugs of all, nicotine and alcohol.
In spite of all the money and effort, one is hard-pressed to define any benefits of the anti-drug efforts. Drug use and availability have not declined, except for the relatively harmless marijuana. Filling its place, particularly among the young and less affluent, are the far more harmful crystal methamphetamine ("Ice") and "rock" cocaine, both of which are easier and cheaper to score than paka lolo, thanks to the success of the costly Green Harvest operations.
If the War on Drugs has failed -- and there are few who would argue otherwise -- what are the options?
One option, of course, is to pursue the War with increased resources: more money, cops and prisons.
At the other end of the spectrum is the option of legalization -- a free market approach, advocated by such distinguished persons as Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman and columnist William Buckley. The legalizers argue correctly that most, if not all, drug-related crime and corruption would be eliminated. With drugs available on demand at competitive prices, there would be no underground market, no turf wars, no need to rob and steal to maintain a steady supply.
However, legalization is not without its problems. If the currently illegal drugs were as readily available as alcohol, caffeine and tobacco, it is likely that more people would try them. There would continue to be drug addicts, but probably no more than at present. The big difference is that with legalization, drug addicts would not have to resort to crime to satisfy their addiction. And, monies now spent on warlike pursuits could be directed toward prevention and treatment, a highly effective approach in reducing cigarette smoking in the U.S.
Legalization presents other problems as well. Who would regulate the production and distribution? What about quality and price controls? Where do the pharmaceutical giants, with their unbridled profit motive, fit into the picture? Should advertising be permitted?
All things considered, outright legalization may not be the best alternative. Surely there is a middle ground that deserves consideration.
The approach gaining acceptance in many parts of Europe and in Australia is called `Harm Reduction,' or `Harm Minimization.' Its underlying philosophy is embodied in the name: reduce the harm. Harm Reduction is a pragmatic, non-judgmental approach to the intractable problem of both legal and illegal drug use.
An example of harm reduction already in place in Hawai`i is the Sterile Needle Exchange Program, in which clean needles and syringes are given to injection drug users in exchange for used ones. Although this program conflicts with the drug paraphernalia statute, it is sanctioned by law in the interest of reducing harm, specifically the spread of AIDS.
Another example is Hawai`i's very limited methadone maintenance program, which provides the substitute drug for heroin addicts to reduce the social harm and health risks inherent in the illegal drug market.
A Harm Reduction approach could go much further. A "controlled availability" component, in which various drugs are made available to those addicted to them, might be included, as it is in England. It could offer drug testing to determine purity of drugs obtained through the black market. It could provide health assistance and treatment to those who fear exposure and arrest by going to public clinics.
And, perhaps most important of all, a Harm Reduction approach could provide straightforward, factually-based education about the harmfulness of drugs. Such programs are obviously working to reduce cigarette smoking and, hopefully, drunk driving.
Harm Reduction represents a middle ground between the strict prohibition policies and outright legalization. It is a concept that merits further study and trials. Could Hawai`i take the lead by implementing such an initiative?
It is for we the people and our elected policy-makers to decide.
NEWS! | ABOUT | DRUG FAQ | RESOURCES | ACTIVITIES | ARCHIVES | EMAIL LIST | GUESTBOOK | DrugSense