With Dr. Frank McField announcing his intention to stand in the May General Election and campaigning for the decriminalization of drug use I thought you might be interested in the two recent publications and stories that do NOT support his stance.

Against the legalization or decriminalization of drugs

From Drug Watch International

The legalization or decriminalization of drugs would make harmful, psychoactive, and addictive substances affordable, available, convenient, and marketable.  It would expand the use of drugs.  It would remove the social stigma attached to illicit drug use, and would send a message of tolerance for drug use, especially to youth.

Background:

Drug legalization or decriminalization is opposed by a vast majority of Americans and people around the world.  Leaders in drug prevention, education, treatment, and law enforcement adamantly oppose it, as do many political leaders.  However, pro-drug advocacy groups, who support the permissive use of illicit drugs, although small in number, are making headlines.  They are influencing legislation and having a significant impact on the national policy debate in the United States and in other countries.  The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) is the oldest drug user lobby in the U.S.  It has strong ties to the Libertarian party, the Drug Policy Foundation, and the American Civil Liberties Union.  These groups use a variety of strategies which range from outright legalization to de facto legalization under the guise of “medicalization,” “harm reduction,” crime reduction, hem/marijuana for the environment, free needle distribution to addicts, marijuana cigarettes as medicine, and controlled legalization through taxation.

Rationale:

The use of illicit drugs is illegal because of their intoxicating effects on the brain, damaging impact on the body, adverse impact on behavior, and potential for abuse.  Their use threatens the health, welfare, and safety of all people, of users and non-users alike.

Legalization would decrease price and increase availability.  Availability is a leading factor associated with increased drug use.  Increased use of addictive substances leads to increased addiction.  As a public health measure, statistics show that prohibition was a tremendous success.

Many drug users commit murder, child and spouse abuse, rape, property damage, assault and other violent crimes under the influence of drugs.  Drug users, many of whom are unable to hold jobs, commit robberies not only to obtain drugs, but also to purchase food, shelter, clothing and other goods and services.  Increased violent crime and increased numbers of criminals will result in even larger prison populations.

Legalizing drugs will not eliminate illegal trafficking of drugs, nor the violence associated with the illegal drug trade.  A black market would still exist unless all psychoactive and addictive drugs in all strengths were made available to all ages in unlimited quantity.

Drug laws deter people from using drugs.  Surveys indicate that the fear of getting in trouble with the law constitutes a major reason not to use drugs.  Fear of the American legal system is a major concern of foreign drug lords.  Drug laws have turned drug users to a drug-free lifestyle through mandatory treatment.  40% – 50% are in treatment as a result of the criminal justice system.

A study of international drug policy and its effects on countries has shown that countries with lax drug law enforcement have had an increase in drug addiction and crime.  Conversely, those with strong drug policies have reduced drug use and enjoy low crime rates.

The United States and many countries would be in violation of international treaty if they created a legal market in cocaine, marijuana, and other drugs.  The U.S. is a signatory to the Single Convention on Narcotics & the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and has agreed with other members of the United Nations to control and penalize drug manufacturing, trafficking, and use.  112 nations recently reaffirmed their commitment to strong drug laws.

For more on this story go to:

http://www.drugwatch.org/Against%20Legalization%20of%20Drugs.htm

The following document “Speaking out against drug legalization” can be downloaded at www.justice.gov/dea/pr/multimedia-library/…/speaking_out.pdf

This document is a comprehensive study executed in 2010 by the USA’s Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)

Some conclusions from the document are:

Every year, the use and abuse of drugs kills tens of thousands of Americans and condemns countless others to a life of addiction, misery and pain. Yet, despite these horrific statistics, there is a broad scale effort underway to “legalize” illegal narcotics in communities and states throughout the country. All too often, supporters of these initiatives mislead the public about the impact of drug legalization and ignore the harm that the wide spread use of narcotics will have on a community.

The simple truth is that legalizing narcotics will not make life better for our citizens, ease the level of crime and violence in our communities nor reduce the threat faced by law enforcement officers. To suggest otherwise ignores reality.

• Marijuana is a dangerous, mind-altering drug. That’s the conclusion the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) came to after reviewing all of the available information. The same can be said of alcohol and tobacco—both legal drugs (and currently outside of the FDA’s jurisdiction).

How could anyone argue that adding a third substance to that mix is going to be beneficial?

• Alcohol and tobacco have proven harmful, addictive, and difficult to regulate. Alcohol is the third leading cause of death in the United States—each year over 100,000 Americans die of alcohol-related causes. The Surgeon General estimates that problems resulting from alcohol use and abuse cost society almost $200 billion every year, and that these costs are far higher than any revenue generated by alcohol taxes.

• Tobacco, the other substance that often is suggested as a model for ‘legal’ marijuana, offers a picture of a similarly bleak future. The Center for Disease Control estimates that the total economic costs associated with cigarette smoking is approximately $7.18 per pack of cigarettes sold in the United States. The revenue generated to cover these costs? The federal excise tax is $1.01 per pack of cigarettes.The median state cigarette excise tax rate, as of January 1, 2007, is

80 cents. This hardly sounds like an “economic windfall” that cures our budget woes.

• If we were to regulate marijuana, we would have to concede that it’s acceptable for society to profit from a person’s addiction. There were approximately 38,000 overdose deaths for illicit drugs and non-medical use of prescription drugs during 2006, according to the Center for Disease Control.5 How much are those lives worth?

• The cost of treatment and rehabilitation from addiction and usage associated illnesses far outweighs the cost of any revenue possibly be generated; a government estimate of the cost of drug use just for one year (2002) was more than $180 billion. Regulation hasn’t kept prescription drugs, alcohol, or tobacco from being abused. The excise taxes that are collected from these activities only cover a portion of the costs of their misuse.

• Studies demonstrate that when people perceive the use of drugs as harmless, drug use increases—

if marijuana or other drugs were legalized, it is certain that the perceived harm would decrease, making the incidence of use rise, regardless of age-related regulations.

Suggesting that the only costs, caused by the illegality of drugs are law enforcement costs ignores lives and livelihoods lost due to addiction and overdose. Lowering or eliminating the legal restrictions for drugs will result in increased availability, and greater use, with higher healthcare costs and increased criminal activity. We have seen these costs go up when other nations have gone down this path, and we should not make the same mistakes.

• For example, when The Netherlands liberalized their drug laws allowing the public sale of marijuana, they saw marijuana use among 18-25 years olds double, and the heroin addiction levels triple. They have since reversed this trend, and have begun implementing tighter drug controls. Indeed, today over 70 percent of Dutch municipalities have local zero-tolerance laws.

Similarly, when the United Kingdom relaxed their drug laws to allow physicians to prescribe heroin to certain classes of addicts, they saw an entirely new class of youthful users emerge. According to social scientist James Q. Wilson, the British Government’s experiment with controlled heroin distribution resulted in a minimum of a 30-fold increase in the number of addicts in 10 years.

• While the notion that each individual can make their own choices without affecting anyone is a nice theory, it is impractical in today’s interconnected world. The health and social costs generated by addiction are borne not just by the drug user, but by everyone. The purpose of an effective drug policy should be to lessen the harm that illegal drugs do to our society. Lowering or eliminating the current legal and social restrictions that limit the availability and social acceptance of drug use would have the opposite result, both domestically and internationally.

• Some have hypothesized that there has already been a loss of state tax revenue because of actions taken against marijuana traffickers who purport to be operating in furtherance of state marijuana legalization laws. In fact, this is a question that some jurisdictions in California have raised directly with the Department of Justice. In summary, the Department of Justice replied that income derived from the sale of marijuana, whether in California or not, represents proceeds of illegal drug trafficking, and as such is forfeitable under federal law.

• The State of California is neither an innocent owner nor a lien holder in regards to collecting illegal drug proceeds. All right, title, and interest in property subject to forfeiture under the Controlled Substance Act – including all money and other proceeds of illegal drug sales – shall vest in the United States upon commission of the illegal act giving rise to the forfeiture. Under the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, a state may not impose a sales tax, or any other tax, on the property of the United States.

• Over the past decade, European drug policy has gone through some dramatic changes toward greater liberalization. The Netherlands, considered to have led the way in the liberalization of drug policy, is only one of a number of Western European countries to relax penalties for marijuana possession. Now several European nations are looking to relax penalties on all drugs—including cocaine and heroin—as Portugal did in July 2001, when minor possession of all drugs was decriminalized (not legalized).

• In recent years the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) has reported a tendency among European countries to make a stronger distinction in their drug laws between those who use drugs and those who sell or traffic drugs. This distinction is reflected in the reduction of penalties for drug use in some countries, though others have not changed or increased penalties.

• EMCDDA reports that recently, the penalties for drug offenses in Europe have generally increased.

“Most of the reported drug law offenses are related to use and possession for use rather than supply, and whereas offenses related to supply have increased by 12 percent, those related to possession have increased by over 50 percent.” Cannabis continues to be the drug most often associated with drug law offenses in Europe.

• While cannabis remains the number one drug of choice in Europe, and cocaine use on the rise, heroin remains the most serious public health issue and accounts for a large proportion of the overall health and social costs associated with drug use.218 Increased cocaine and heroin use are not the policy outcomes of an effective drug strategy.

• The United Kingdom has also experimented with the relaxation of drug laws. Until the mid-1960s, British physicians were allowed to prescribe heroin to certain classes of addicts. According to political scientist James Q. Wilson, “a youthful drug culture emerged with a demand for drugs far different from that of the older addicts.” Many addicts chose to boycott the program and continued to get their heroin from illicit drug distributors. The British Government’s experiment with controlled heroin distribution, says Wilson, resulted in, at a minimum, a 30-fold increase in the number of addicts in 10 years.

• A major newspaper in England, The Independent, reversed its very public stance in support of marijuana. After a pro-cannabis editorial appeared in 1997, 16,000 people marched on London’s Hyde Park. The editorial and a subsequent march were credited with forcing the government to downgrade the legal status of cannabis to Class C. However, an editorial in the March 18, 2007 issue, titled “Cannabis: An Apology,” states that the paper is reversing its decision. “In 1997, when this paper called for decriminalization, 1,600 people were being treated for cannabis addiction.Today, the number is 22,000.” Concerns such as the record number of teenagers requiring drugntreatment as a result of smoking ‘skunk’ (a highly potent cannabis strain), and the growing proofthat skunk causes mental illnesses were cited among the reasons for this reversal.

• In a statement to the press, British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced on May 8, 2008, that cannabis is being reclassified back to a Class B drug, sending a strong message that the drug is harmful. Addressing the House of Commons, Secretary Smith cited the need to update public policies to match recent scientific evidence about the serious harms of marijuana use, “the enforcement response must reflect the danger that the drug poses to individuals, and in turn, to communities.” This reclassification went into effect in January, 2009.229

• Liberalization of marijuana laws in Switzerland has likewise produced damaging results. After liberalization, Switzerland became a magnet for drug users from many other countries. In 1987, Zurich permitted drug use and sales in a part of Platzpitz, dubbed “Needle Park.” By 1992, the number of regular drug users at the park reportedly swelled from a few hundred at the outset in 1987 to about 20,000. The area around the park became crime-ridden, forcing closure of the park. The experiment has since been terminated.230

• High levels of alcohol and drug consumption by young people in Europe is leading to an increase in unsafe sexual practices and a consequent rise in sexually-transmitted disease infections according to a recently published study by the European Institute of Studies on Prevention.

• According to the latest report on the state of the drug problem in Europe published by the European Monitoring Committee on Drugs and Drug Addiction, cocaine use is continuing to rise. The report highlights the need for vigilance in response to changes in the opiate problem. It records that there are between 1.3 and 1.7 million problem opiate (mainly heroin) users throughout the EU and Norway, and points out that heroin accounts for Europe’s largest drug related health and social costs.232 The United States has dealt with increases in cocaine use and reversed the trend. Rather than point to Europe’s more liberal drug policies as an example for United States drug policy, perhaps there are effective lessons that Europe could learn from this paper called for decriminalization, 1,600 people were being treated for cannabis addiction.