Brief claims and replies on legalisation
CLAIM:
The reason that people get into trouble is that drugs are illegal. Legalise drugs and people will not land in prison!REPLY:
Drugs are not harmful because they are illegal. They are illegal for the very fact that they are harmful. Drugs distort the power and capacity of the brain and drive man to irrational behaviour and irresponsible actions. Prison sentences would still have to be given for the many crimes that would be committed under the influence of drugs.CLAIM:
Some illegal drugs are not more dangerous than those which already exist, for example alcohol and tobacco.REPLY:
It is true that alcohol and tobacco give rise to a number of injurious effects, among them premature death. And because these well-known injurious effects are so big, we should be wary of introducing new substances of abuse on top of what we already have. This especially since the knowledge of the (side)effects of some of these drugs is limited. We should rather treat alcohol and tobacco more strictly than the other way round!CLAIM:
Most of those who consume alcohol do not develop addiction. Neither would this happen with the new drugs.REPLY:
Some 5-1O% of those who consume alcohol become addicts. In the case of cocaine, even conservative observers claim that 20-35% become addicts. This means that medical care and treatment capacity would have to be greatly increased. Few, if any, countries can afford such a great expansion of treatment facilities. Some experts claim that the percentage of those who become addicted is even higher. Some of them claim that almost 70% of cocaine users become addicted. According to these latter assessments, the number of cocaine addicts would be ten times as great as it is at present if legalisation was made total.In addition, it may be stated that the consumption patterns for alcohol and for illegal drugs differ greatly. An overwhelming majority of those who drink alcohol are seldom intoxicated.
In the case of illegal drugs, intoxication is the sole purpose of consumption. Intoxication constitutes the foundation for the development of addiction, namely that consumption is repeated in order to re-experience the pleasurable intoxicating effect.
CLAIM:
Only certain groups, not all young people, would try these drugs if they were legalised.REPLY:
Accessibility and the drug habits of society as a whole are decisive for whether young people begin to use drugs. Many young people try drugs just because they are easily accessible and because their friends use them. Legalising drugs would change public attitudes, resulting in an upsurge in use, primarily among youngsters who have not yet developed stable standards and value-systems.CLAIM:
It is our concern if we want to legalise drugs in our country.REPLY:
By signing international agreements, primarily the UN Single Convention 1961, most countries have pledged to co-operate against the drug traffic. If one country violates this agreement, international collaboration is seriously threatened and the country magnetises experimenters and users of drugs. The population of the legalising country soon adopts the viewpoint that drugs cannot be especially dangerous since they are on open sale. This has happened in The Netherlands with the 'de facto' legalisation of cannabis products.CLAIM:
Crimes committed by drug users would decrease after legalisation since those who commit such crimes would not have to steal for such large amounts to finance their addiction.REPLY:
The price of drugs after legalisation is not easy to predict. It is in the interest of the drug dealers to keep the price on the market high in order to maximise their profits, and it is in the interest of the country to tax the drugs in order to collect money to build treatment facilities for the future victims. Even if the market price IS very low, when someone has developed an addiction and multiplied their consumption, THEN it becomes expensive regardless. The claim above also presumes that crimes by drug-users only have a financial background. It is the actual DRUG EFFECTS and their power to intoxicate and blunt emotional life that in many cases produces crimes and violence. 73% of all murders of children in New York during 1987 were committed by drug users. Road safety is another field which would be seriously affected.CLAIM:
It is the individual's private concern if he wants to use drugs.REPLY:
In a civilised society where people live close together it is not a private matter. The rights of society and the risks to society must always be taken into consideration. Using drugs affects the family, colleagues (safety at work), etc. in one way or another. Production losses and premature deaths also lead to a reduction in society's resources which could otherwise have been utilized to build up a welfare state. Society suffers from a drainage of brain power in the long run. An increase in traffic accidents is also an example of the effects on a third person, as is the fact that unborn children should have the right to avoid the injurious effects of different drugs during their embryo period. Some drug users are so changed as to commit acts of aggression and violence, and even murder.CLAIM:
The government could collect large amounts by taxing drugs.REPLY:
Alcohol consumption has taught us that this is a poor business for society. The cost of medical care, etc. greatly exceeds the income. If taxes were high enough to cover the actual costs, the price of the drugs would be so excessive that a black market with cheaper prices would be created.CLAIM:
It is useless to conduct a 'war' against the drug trade. Stop wasting resources since the development is unavoidable.REPLY:
It is correct that to a great extent the 'war' has been incorrectly conducted. It is never possible to crush the drug market by trying to eradicate or incapacitate its top members, or even by working against the producers. Production units can in most cases be replaced at a low cost. It is the demand in our own country which is completely decisive for the development of the drugs market.Local actions in each country will be decisive in determining whether developments move toward improvement or deterioration. Major profits are not made abroad but in the addict's own country, on the streets where drugs are bought and sold. The addict is the only irreplaceable category among the many links in the drugs trade, since it is the consumer who, in the final analysis, is responsible for both the demand and the spread of drugs.
CLAIM:
It is not possible to deter addicts from something which is in itself a social problem by punishing them.REPLY:
The cause and root of the problem is the interaction between drugs and the individual user. Drug users do not necessarily have a social problem before they begin their drugs consumption. If they do have other problems, it is all the more important that they do not add addiction to those problems with easily available drugs. The use of drugs creates social problems. It is also a social problem because of the resulting anti-social behaviour and health hazards.The claim that drug abuse cannot be eradicated by punishment implies that it can be eradicated by treatment. Instead, however, emphasis on treatment functions as a conserving and promoting factor and perpetuates the drugs market. There are two reasons for this:
- First, many addicts function as distributors of drugs, especially in the early stages of their drug-abuse career, when they experience the pleasurable effects of the drug and have not yet seen any bad side effects. The reason drug abusers spread their habit is that they want to let their friends share what they think is positive. Later in the career, when all the negative effects predominate, the tendency to spread the drug-taking drops radically.
- Second, the largest group of drug addicts do not express a serious wish for treatment until late in their drug-abuse career, either after their abuse has led to serious effects, or under the pressure of demands by the rest of society (relatives, authorities). Therefore, waiting for an addict to 'hit the bottom' and be motivated for treatment often means leaving him to self-destruction.
CLAIM:
If you legalise the drug market, you will stop its further expansion by control.REPLY:
If you want to stop further expansion of the drug market, new recruitment to drug-taking must cease. The majority of people are law abiding and legalisation would take away the deterrent effect. Also society must assume active responsibility for existing addicts to stop further expansion. Treatment has a humane value for the individual, his relatives and society, but has in most cases little or no effect on the spreading of drugs since that took place long before the addict came into treatment. Even 100% effective treatment programmes could not stop the spreading, and often the results of treatment are much lower than that. In order to ensure both a humane and effective operation, the nature of the control policy and its operations must be kept continuously under intensive and democratic discussion. In all probability we will then arrive at the conclusion that a combination of closely co-ordinated social, educational and police work can increase both the preventive effect and the efficacy of various treatments offered on all levels.CLAIM:
'War' against drugs builds up a police state which is more dangerous than the drug problem.REPLY:
Yes, IF we put the main emphasis on actions against traffickers. Then
you need the heavy artillery and the numerous laws with great authority
for the police.
EURAD does not want a police-state any more than it wants a 'drug-state' which
in turn can create blind reaction among ordinary people. People who are fed up
with a bad drug situation take the law into their own hands and might arm themselves
or start riots. The latter has already happened in The Netherlands and is dangerous
to any democracy.
EURAD advocates a preventive demand-restrictive strategy where the main emphasis
is put on ordinary people (parents, teachers, church, youth leaders, etc.). They
must learn how to prevent and how to detect drug abuse at an early stage and
in co-operation stop it. If this can he done while the problem is small, then
the measures can be small too and no police-state is created.
[Our grateful thanks to Mrs. A Bergström for translating and to Jolly-Tekst
for typesetting.]
 |
Page 1|2 |
