[ topical analysis ] propaganda analysis
It's Well-Past The Time To Decriminalize Drugs - Gary
Krasner
Article
It's Well-Past The Time To Decriminalize Drugs
By Gary Krasner (06/19/2004)
I thought I would tackle an issue in which conventional
political partisans do not line up evenly. There may be
as many Republicans who support drug decriminalization
as there are Democrats who feel similarly. While those
who desire drug decriminalization may be in the
minority, we normally don't see this level of
cross-party consensus on most issues. On that basis
alone, it might seem that this is an issue that has
appeal on its merits and represents an efficacious
rationale for reforming a failed status quo policy.
Despite the low degree of party partisanship, this
issue still attracts a good share of shameless
sloganeering that decriminalization 'sends the wrong
message to kids'; cheap political grandstanding that
drug abuse will increase; self-righteous sermons about
the immorality of permitting drug use; embellishments
that drugs will be as available as cigarettes or
liquor; race peddling by claiming that minorities will
be most adversely affected; and misstatements of fact
that drug abuse has declined.
Let's examine a common argument from liberal opponents
of decriminalization: That drug dealing has devastated
their communities and increased crime. Let's admit to
some self-evident facts. First, that drug abusers are
"criminals" solely as an artifact of the controlled
substances laws: Either because they're caught using
drugs, or because of the high cost of drugs that forces
users to rob, steal, or prostitute themselves. The high
cost of drugs is itself solely an artifact of it's
illicit status!
Let's also admit that drug dealers are not in business
to hurt people. They're in it for the money. The harm
that drugs do to their clients is an incidental matter
to them. They're on the street corner selling drugs
because drugs can be sold at high profit margins,
because it's a black market product (no pun). If drugs
can be obtained at the pharmacy with a prescription or
permit, then drug dealers will be gone from the street.
Gang and mob violence over the control of the streets
where drugs are sold would also disappear.
White Man in Harlem
It was particularly ironic that former President
Clinton rented his office in Harlem, as it was he and
other vocal opponents of decriminalization who
successfully used race and drugs as a wedge issue
solely for political gain. The following vignette also
represents how cynical and decadent our body politic
and (what amounts to) discourse has become as a result
of the current drug policy:
The disparity in sentencing for possession of cocaine
is far greater than for heroin. And since the less
expensive cocaine is used in a greater ratio by blacks,
it has resulted in more convicted blacks going to
prison for disproportionately longer periods than for
the same offense committed by whites selling or using
heroin.
Instead of seeking to resolve this inequity, President
Clinton used it as a racial wedge issue. In his
campaign for re-election, President Clinton frequently
implied--and echoed by black Democratic members of
Congress--that the disparity in these drug penalties
was created by racially prejudiced Republicans.
In reality, these drug penalties were originally
intended to save black and poor communities from the
ravages of crack-cocaine. In the early 1980s,
(anti-decriminalization advocate) Congressman Charles
Rangel and the Congressional Black Caucus were alarmed
by the adverse effects that these cheap drugs had on
their neighborhoods, and consequently had forcefully
lobbied for stiffer penalties for the sale and
possession of cocaine.
They got what they wanted. And 10 years later, in a
political environment where perception and
preconception are reality, the issue was tailor-made
for Clinton.
If anyone doubted that it was nothing more than a wedge
issue for Clinton, such doubts were eliminated by the
time of his second term as President. Because by then,
Congress approved more equitable sentencing guidelines.
And the punch-line? Clinton vetoed it(!)--despite the
fact that it was a politically safe time (in his second
term) for him to enact it.
It doesn't end there. One of the (record number of)
white men Clinton pardoned was a man who was convicted
for possessing 800 pounds of cocaine, presumably
destined for a neighborhood like Harlem. He was
pardoned because his father was a large contributor to
the Democratic Party.
Clinton had always counted on the African-American
community whenever he got into trouble. That move he
made into Harlem wasn't his first choice. It was damage
control for the fallout from the pardons. But did
Harlem really need another "dealer" living there?
Imagine a World
As a Natural Hygienist, I haven't taken so much as an
aspirin in 35 years. My dentist is still amazed that I
refused all anesthesia when he installed crowns for me
several years ago. So I don't have any pro-drug agenda.
My agenda is just good public policy.
Decriminalization of illicit drugs would lead to the
following:
-- Virtually overnight, the price of formerly
controlled substances would plummet. All street crime,
money laundering, gang violence, (etc.), and the
corresponding corruption in law enforcement that
involves drugs, would disappear. The power of organized
crime and drug cartels would decline drastically, with
beneficial ripple effects throughout our society. The
greatest improvement will be seen in impoverished
communities. Street dealers will be gone. So will be
maximum minimum sentences, that have led to lengthy and
costly (to the taxpayers) incarceration of non-violent
offenders, that has exacerbated the breakdown of
families and communities.
-- Based upon past experience (prohibition of alcohol),
we can expect a slight and temporary rise in drug
abuse, which would eventually decline and level off,
partly because of more robust and better-funded
prevention programs (from the billions of dollars saved
from drug enforcement that's no longer needed), and
also because studies indicate there's a percentage of
"addictive personalities" who will seek out drugs
whether they're legal or illegal. Most of us, for
example, will not use recreational drugs once they're
decriminalized.
-- People addicted to drugs would be registered with
the government and encouraged to detoxify. In the
meantime, the substances that we provide addicts will
be less potent and free of harmful contaminants.
Pharmaceutical companies would make safer substances to
wean abusers off of the most addictive and psychoactive
substances. Again, the billions formerly spent on drug
enforcement could fund all this. (Over $20 annually at
the federal level alone.)
The only way societies have been able to control the
transactions of items in great demand was by
controlling its legal commerce, and never through total
prohibition. Prohibition forces the commerce
underground and makes it invisible. It never stops it.
Supply inevitably meets demand. Always.
Prohibition also poses special problems for open
societies like ours. The regulators operate in the
open, while the violators operate in secret, without
any rules. The former are vulnerable to bribery; their
families threatened; etc. Unless we're prepared to
inaugurate a police state, with secret trials, and
police, prosecutors, jurists and jurors forced to wear
masks to conceal their identities (for their own
safety), all notions of effective drug enforcement and
interdiction is a false promise.
Let's drop the facade that we may lose "respect for
law" or that we risk "tearing apart the moral fabric of
our society". We can also ignore the "deadheads" that
favor this. Strictly from a rational public policy
standpoint, decriminalizing drugs is a no-brainer (no
pun).
Gary Krasner grew up in the Bronx in the 50's through
the 70's. He moved to Queens in 1975 after obtaining a
B.S. degree in Psychology from CCNY. Today, Mr. Krasner
works as a computer graphics artist by day. By night he
runs Coalition For Informed Choice, a non-partisan
organization that promotes personal freedom of choice
in decisions involving our health.
Send Feedback To Gary Krasner
Article Options
Newsletter
Suggested Articles
Our Capitalist Economy, Our Socialist Government
Parenting Policy: Are All Family Forms Equal?
Early Literacy Instruction Leaves No Child Behind!
Design (c) 2003-2004. Content (c) 2003-2004 of its
respective author.
Views are those of individual authors and not
necessarily those of American Daily.
I thought this page was interesting because:
| re:0.92 st:0 fo:5.43 s:0.01 d:0.11 c:0.01 a:8.67 m:1.76 t:17.04 |
| 
(video)
