Twenty-Two Letters on The Drug Question

Steve Sturgill January 31, 2000

22 Letters to the Editor

A couple of weeks ago the Arizona Republic had a week-long series on a months-long investigation of drug trafficking and related problems in Arizona. They asked what readers thought. In the weekend issues of the Republic came 22 letters to the editor on the subject of drugs and what to do about them, including letters from four medical people, two senior police officials, two senior public service agency officials, and about a dozen other people. I read it all and, unfortunately, there is much left to be said.

Letters from Senior Policemen

The main letter on Saturday was from Commander Kenneth Tims, of the Phoenix Police Department's Drug Enforcement Bureau. Commander Tims concludes that society cannot underestimate the hazards of drug use.

On Sunday Sheriff Joe Arpaio's letter appeared, saying that he will continue to lock up drug dealers, except he also says that what we are doing now is not working and he doesn't know how to solve the problem, except that he feels the money would be better spent on increasing rehabilitation and education.

Before I launch in, let me just declare that I mean no personal disrespect to Commander Tims or Sheriff Arpaio. On the contrary, I have every respect for individuals with the courage to be involved in drug enforcement. I simply disagree that they should be engaged in drug enforcement in the first place.

Don't underestimate, but don't overweight, either.

Commander Tims is right that we shouldn't underestimate the potential for drug problems, but you also have to be careful not to assign too much weight to individual pieces of the problem or its solutions.

Straw Man Error

There is something wrong in what Commander Tims wrote, about our experiment with legal drugs one hundred years ago. In raising the spectre of what happened a century ago, Commander Tims sets up a straw man and then proceeds to skewer it. But what he says does not apply.

Contrary to one hundred years ago, nobody contemplates, when talking about legalization of dangerous drugs, that suddenly it will be legal for soft drink manufacturers to spike their drinks with drugs like cocaine. Doctors won't be relieved of their Hippocratic duty to do no harm. Also, nobody is advocating wholesale marketing of dangerous drugs to innocent, uninformed and susceptible people. Contrary to a century ago, the populace benefits from education about drug abuse. Contrary to a century ago, something is known about the field.

Vast New Class of Idle Druggies

More than half of Commander Tims' column was the canard of a century ago. In the balance of his letter, he agrees that treatment alternatives and new methods are needed, but he asserts that legalization of drugs will drastically increase the cost of taking care of a vast new class of idle drug abusers that legalization would create.

First, the assumption that vast new classes of idle druggies will be created is off base. Commander Tims seems to assume that human beings have a basic lack of self respect and self discipline. If that is the case, where are these vast legions of shiftless drunks that would follow from such arguments? Yes, drugs, including alcohol, are a big problem, but to change their ways, you work on people's minds through education and treatment, not on their bodies through coercion and incarceration. A citizen's drug problems should be outside the scope of law enforcement unless the citizen becomes unruly or dangerous.

Commander Tims would seem to be on thin ice here. What is he saying, that if you don't apply force on them here and now, you'll have to apply more force on them later? Who exactly is he talking about, anyway, in his new subculture of shiftless druggies on the dole?

Police force should be applied, in cases of drug abuse, only as required to obtain dominance in a given tactical situation. As you'd subdue a drunk, subdue an unruly person on any drug. Then process him through Medical. Don't worry about where he got the drug. It's not a police problem. Police have a job to do, which is to make sure those school children get home safe today and every day, and when you're done with that we have a million other useful things you could be doing.

As Sheriff Arpaio seems to be concluding, law enforcement is the wrong tool for the drug arena. Law enforcement is set up for failure dealing with drugs. We ought to pull them out for redeployment.

Letters from three doctors and one psychologist

Among this group the legalizers were ahead three to one, and the lone medical prohibitionist made the same error as Commander Tims. The only difference was that the dissenting doctor picked on hundred year old Chinese addicts while Commander Tims used hundred year old American addicts. Different times, different places, different circumstances. Again, nobody is advocating wholesale marketing of these addictive and dangerous substances to innocents. Coke will not again turn out a cocaine spiked soft drink.

The dissenting doctor also would have us buy into the extrapolation from a 100-year-old Chinese experience to a modern society with one out of three citizens addicted to really bad drugs just because they are legal. I don't buy into that scenario, and I wonder whether, on reflection, the author would.

Singapore and Drug Testing

One reader suggested that Singapore's experience might apply, while another suggested universal drug testing be the approach. Both of these lines of thought are offensive to someone who values personal liberty and freedom. There comes a point where the burden an individual places on the rest of us becomes unacceptable in a free society. Everyone should recognize that, especially the addict. If the addict can function with his affliction, either because he is in abstention or because he can deal with continued abuse, great, that's up to him.. Just don't drive drugged, so to speak. That should get you in trouble with the law..

No Call for Legalization from the Ghetto?

Yes, many minority Americans suffer disproportionately from various social afflictions. That still does not mean you continue to do the wrong thing. Doing the wrong thing has resulted in the present state of affairs. Why would you want to continue more of the same?

The disproportionate impact of hard drugs, crack cocaine in particular, on certain segments of modern America is a difficult problem with roots and tendrils extending to many aspects of life and sociology. Keeping the status quo vis-ˆ-vis drugs will not make things better. Putting more of the burden on the addict and less on the rest of us will result in increased likelihood of individual sobriety for individuals. Present "lock 'em up 'till they see the light" policies are for nothing.

The corresondent's question, why we would want to add more drugs to the legal mix after the experience with alcohol and tobacco, is easily answered. You do so because the alternative is worse. Turn the question around and ask, Would you want to add tobacco and alcohol to the prohibition basket with other heavy drugs? Of course not, because you learned the lesson from the earlier part of this century, of Prohibition, about gangsters, rum runners, corruption, violence and all that. So why not recognize the mistake of prohibition at this time?

Show the hard truth.

I agree that the entire truth of drug abuse should be shown, down to crack babies in your face, bizzare, drug induced murders, the lives and families ruined, everything. You have to guard against propagandizing, though, because nobody will believe your re-release of Reefer Madness, and then they won't believe anything you say.

Price of drugs should reflect legal market value, like rice or beans.

As for legalization only making drugs cheaper and driving up the cost of treatment, yes, drugs will be cheaper, reflecting their real value and driving the criminal element from the trade. Treatment costs will increase because treatment must be available immediately when people decide they need it, not months down the road. In the long run, contrary to what professional law enforcement authorities say, we will be better off legalizing drugs and putting more of the burden on the user, less on society. Handle increased treatment requirements by redirecting law enforcement assets and come out money ahead.

United Nations Convention notwithstanding.... Letters from anti-drug public service organizations.

The writer from the National Drug Prevention Alliance, in the United Kingdom, ties all of today's problems to drug use, and castigates the media for failing to assist in preventing drug use. Paraphrasing, he says television should air approved scripts, and that the media should suppress discussion raised by a "vocal minority."

He says US media should do this because the United States is a signatory to the United Nations Convention, and so bound forever to a hopeless, discredited and destructive policy. He is wrong. That a United Nations Convention should need change comes as no surprise given the rapid and accelerating pace of change in the world today.

The United Nations Convention does not make present national drug policy correct.

Sunday's letter from the head of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America was refreshing in that they "don't disagree" that interdiction is largely a failure, and that they believe education, prevention and treatment are the key to dealing with the problem of drugs. What troubles me is inclusion of "prevention" in the formula. Prevention is great, but it is the door through which law enforcement enters the scene, which is not so great. The letter cited some statistics showing how the drug situation had improved recently. I wonder how much better they'd be were it not for the destructive presence of law enforcement in the equation?

In a Free Society...

In a free society, one does not hesitate to speak his mind. Ultimately, it is his right to speak his mind because he might have something worth saying. Since he might be right in what he says, nobody can legally suppress his "vocal minority." Maybe in England, under the United Nations Charter, you can silence discussion of the drug problem with the Official Secrets Act, but not here in the United States.

The way things are going now, though, I wonder how long it will be before someone from Commander Tims' or General McCaffrey's offices looks into the idea of silencing dissent, as they now try to modify television scripts. As the gentleman from the UK suggests. As authorities have done many times in this country, with strong application of seldom enforced laws upon people critical of the party line.

Like in Singapore under United Nations Conventions. That's what erosion of civil liberties is all about, and why present national drug policy is so wrong.