The Drug Prohibition: Morality at what cost?
In our country, violent criminal attacks are an everday occurance. Drive-by shootings are commonplace. Rival gangs kill each other, and anyone in their way, over drug selling "turf". Prisons are overcrowded. Our judicial system is so overloaded it is barely functional. The "Wheels of Justice" are slowly grinding to a halt. The courts are so overwhelmed with drug cases that other criminal and civil litigation is being crowded out. (Manson 1991). Violence stemming from the illicit drug trade has turned some inner cities into war zones (Manson 1991).
Our government would like you to believe this situation is without precedent, that the problem we are facing has never been dealt with before. Their solution? Build more jails, pass more gun control laws, pass more restrictive drug laws. One need not look too far back in history to see that this approach has been tried before, and will not work.
On January 16th, 1920, the 18th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was ratified. In a perfect example of the government attempting to legislate morality, this law forbid the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors. During the next thirteen years of prohibition, our country saw a rise in violent crime unequaled in our history. Violent gangs of criminals controlled the now illegal distribution of liquor. As competition among gangs increased, gang wars and drive-by shootings became more frequent. Stricter laws on gun control (the Gun Control act of 1928) and alcohol possession were passed, and more prisons were built, all with no effect on crime. Criminals made millions of dollars while the rights of law abiding citizens were destroyed. In most large cities people were afraid to walk the streets at night.
Realizing their experiment with legislating morality had failed miserably, the government finally relented. The 21st Amendment, passed on December 5th, 1933, repealed the Prohibition on alcohol. Gang violence, deprived of its primary profit motive, ceased almost immediately. With the re-legalization of alcohol, some degree of sanity returned to our streets.
The parallels between our situation now and the situation that existed then are inescapable. Fortune magazine estimates the U.S. drug trade to be $300 billion a year, with one third being the sale of cocaine. In 1991 our government spent $10.5 billion of taxpayer money to try and stop the illegal drug industry, and achieved nothing (Manson 1991). The only way to stop the crime and violence associated with the drug trade is to take a lesson from history and re-legalize marijuana, cocaine and heroin.
The term "re-legalize" is used here because at one time in our country's history, these drugs were legal. In his book "The Legislation of Morality" Troy Duster says, " There was once a time when anyone could go to his corner druggist and buy grams of morphine and heroin for just a few pennies. There was no need for a prescription from a physician. The middle and upper classes purchased more than the lower classes, and there was no moral stigma attached to such narcotic use. The year was 1900, and the country was the United States."
"Suddenly, there came the enlightenment of the twentieth century, full with moral insight and indignation, a smattering of knowledge of physiology, and the force of law. By 1920, the purchase of narcotics was not only criminal (that happened overnight in 1914), but some men had become assured the purchase was immoral (Duster 1970, 3).
Unlike the prohibition on alcohol, the drug prohibition came about for other reasons than concern for the public health. Public opposition to the use of opiates began in California and was focused on the ethnic Chinese. Initially welcomed as a source of cheap labor for railroad construction, Chinese immigrants became the focus of discrimination when the job market tightened. A campaign to discredit the Chinese claimed they were drugged by opiates and were bent on drawing other Americans into their addictive habit (Cooper 1980, 114).
The campaign for prohibition of alcohol also led to public pressure to regulate access to narcotics. In 1914 Congress passed the Harrison Narcotics Act, which restricted distribution of narcotics, including cocaine, a popular ingredient in soft drinks (Coca-Cola), and patent medicines.
Marijuana remained legal until the passage, in 1937, of the Marijuana Tax Act. Again, the passage of this law had no connection to public health concerns. The main factor was discrimination. A wave of poor immigrants from Mexico and Central America during the 1920's was followed by tales of violent rampages by Spanish-speaking, marijuana-smoking aliens crazed by the "Weed of Madness" (Cooper 1980, 114).
Law professor Jeffrey Blum, in a brief prepared for federal judge John Elvin, tells us the law was also an attempt to protect the wood pulp and synthetic fiber industries in the 1930's. These industries, led by DuPont, wanted to eliminate possible competition from the hemp plant. Hemp is capable of producing more than four times as much paper as trees per acre.
Another factor contributing to the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act in 1937 Was the job losses among federal enforcers after the repeal of Prohibition (Blum 1992, 10).
Throughout the 1930's a lurid "Reefer Madness" campaign was carried on, led by the Hearst newspaper chain, which owned considerable timberland. The campaign was based partly on the knowledge that Pancho Villa's army had smoked marijuana during the Mexican Revolution. It portrayed "Pot" as a powerful drug capable of causing Anglo teenagers to turn instantly into hot-blooded, irrational, violent people (Blum 1992, 10).
Economic protectionism appears to have played a part in the publicity campaign against marijuana during the past two decades. By far the largest sponsor of The Partnership for a Drug Free America, a group which blankets the airwaves with anti-marijuana commercials, has been the Phillip Morris company, which sells several brands of tobacco and is the parent company for Miller beer (Blum 1992, 10).
Violent crime goes hand in hand with the illegal drug trade. A 1992 Study in Camden, New Jersey found that 80% of all violent crime there was drug related. The total cost of the drug war in New Jersey alone, not counting federal funding, is $9 million annually (Uris 1992). Our cities are being turned into war zones while politicians pass "Feel Good" legislation, such as gun control, that does not address the real cause of violent crime in our country.
Houston attorney David Berg says of legalization, "The violence that accompanies the need for drugs and the market for drugs and the search for drugs would drop virtually overnight" (Manson 1991).
Many political conservatives, such as journalist William F. Buckley, U.S. Rep George Crockett of Michigan, and federal judge Robert Sweet, a long time Republican, favor legalization as the only serious solution to the ills plaguing this country. Sweet, a former federal prosecutor, wants to end the drug trade by taking away the high profit motive. He would have the government dispense drugs as it does alcohol, driving down the black market prices. Prohibition would only cover the young. Money saved on law enforcement would be used to expand treatment and education programs (Baer 1990, 26).
Governments that ban drugs cannot also tax them; thus they abandon the most effective means of controlling their abuse. Drugs impose public costs- for policing the trade, for treating its victims, for warning the public against abuse. Yet governments decline the revenues that taxes would produce (Legalization 1989).
Drugs are dangerous. So is the illegality that surrounds them. Drug takers steal to pay for their illegal habit. Drug retailers shoot it out for control of the streets. Drug wholesalers form protection squads, bribe policemen, tempt politicians (Legalization 1989).
In legitimate commerce, the sale of drugs in controlled, taxed and supervised. Their dangers proclaimed on every packet, drugs would poison fewer customers, bribe fewer policemen, and raise more public revenues (Legalization 1989).
Legalizing drugs would be risky. Continuing the Prohibition is worse.
REFERENCES
Baer, Donald. 1990. A judge who took the stand: it's time to legalize drugs. US News and World report, 9 April, 26-27.
Bernards, Neal, ed. 1990. War on Drugs. San Diego: Greenhaven
Blum, Jeffrey. 1992. Dopebusters. Utne Reader, May/June, 134.
Cooper, Mary. 1990. Does the war on drugs need a new strategy? Editorial Research Reports, 23 February, 110-122.
Duster, Troy. 1970. The Legislation of Morality. New York: Free Press
Is legalization the answer? 1989. World Press Review, November, 27-28.
Manson, Patricia. 1991. Legalizing drugs, will it win the war? Houston Post, 14 November
Uris, Robin. 1992. Legalizing drugs. Camden Courier Post, 21 June.
COPYRIGHT 1993 RON BARGOOT