The War On Drugs

The "law of unanticipated consequences" posits that actions often have results different from or even antithetical to their aims. On the other hand, I believe the best way to determine the aims of a behavior is to look at its outcomes. This is quite interesting when applied to drugs. The word itself is problematic since it is used in so many different ways but, for purposes of this discussion I'll use it to refer to the illegal pharmacopeia against which nations legislate.

In The Underground Empire (1974), James Mills reported that the income from the illegal drug trade was greater than the GNP of all but the six largest industrial nations.In the succeeding decades, this has only increased. He also reported on the active participation in this trade by virtually every government, and every law enforcement agency, on earth. This has been confirmed and further explicated by Michael Levine in The Big White Lie.

Almost all such governments have mounted very public anti-drug campaigns. What has been the result of this behavior: the creation of the largest income engine on earth; the corruption of all governments and law enforcement agencies; the creation and enrichment of violent, ruthless drug lords; the enrichment of violent, ruthless politicians; the creation and enrichment of enormous anti-drug law enforcement agencies; the expenditure of about 90% of all law enforcement funding; virtually no diminution of illegal drug usage.

So, who has benefited from anti-drug legislation, only those who sell the drugs and those who ostensibly try to stop them. As a further "benefit," it should be noted that there is no surer way to guarantee that adolescents will do something, than to tell them their parents don't want them to - adding that the behavior feels good is just icing on the cake. This is how you guarantee an emerging market.

All of the above could be halted immediately by the simple expedient of legalization of all drugs. The illegal profit margin and its corruptive influence and associated violence would disappear, the taxes would benefit society and there would be no effect on drug usage. If you find this last assertion questionable, ask yourself this simple question: do you think there is anyone who wanted to do drugs who was dissuaded by their illegality? I would suggest such numbers are miniscule and are counterbalanced or exceeded by the number of those who try drugs precisely because of their illegal cache.

It should be noted that the most ardent opponents of legalization, aside from deluded ideologues, are drug dealers and anti-drug enforcers, all of whom owe their employment to the status quo. So, based on my original premise, the aims of drug prohibition are: the creation of huge illegal profits; the creation of huge legal anti-drug agencies which amass wealth and power of their own and the corruption and subversion of every government and law enforcement agency.

Labels: War On Drugs

- posted by Martin Eagle @ 4:50 AM