A friend of mine (Sam) posted this article on Facebook. It describes the guilty conscience of a former prosecutor who is partially responsible for 1000 drug-related jail sentences.
Some of Sam's friends and I got into a discussion about the article. Nota bene: what follows is not for the faint of heart.
Sam's friend #1:
"'the drug war'?!? Wasn't that lost a long time ago and no one seemed to notice or even care? 'Just say NO' indeed..."
My response:
"Best just to legalize everything. People will abuse substances no matter what the government does, so we might as well acknowledge it. Money raised by taxing the drugs (and money saved by eliminating enforcement) can go to help those who are addicted and want to stop."
Friend #2:
"Ugh. Our current system is certainly broken. We don't have to go as far as legalizing drugs to make a difference... it would save a ton of money if we just provided our homeless substance dependent population with a safe clean and comfortable place to stay in exchange for abstinence. That would give them incentive to stay off the drugs, and save millions in unnecessary emergency room visits (we could cut half the beds from our psychiatric ER if these people had someplace else to go... and believe me, it's not like we're the Ritz Carlton, so clearly the other options must be pretty bad)."
Friend #1:
"...or we could just do what China does. They execute both drug dealers AND drug users."
Me:
"Sadly, executing someone in this country is incredibly expensive due to all the appeals that death row convicts feel entitled to. It would be more effective if the police executed drug dealers and drug users on sight rather than simply arresting them for subsequent trial in a court of law."
Friend #2:
Actually, I've met a number of drug users and drug dealers. They're people. I wouldn't be so quick to condemn them to death, even in an intellectual exercise.
Sam:
"I assume (and certainly hope) that they were attempting humor. Not funny, imho, but that's a matter of taste. Especially not funny, considering that in some countries (Thailand) police in fact do kill drug dealers and users, often without a trial."
Me:
"You are correct in deciphering my second comment as ironic, though my intent was satire (denouncing those who think that drug users are not deserving of due process) rather than humor (mocking drug users). My first comment was genuine, though. In response to [Friend #2]: while your suggested program to offer housing in return for abstinence would certainly work in reducing the amount of drug abuse, my instinct is that the savings in reduced ER visits would not be enough to pay for the program. Ending the war on drugs by legalizing them would be a huge savings, though. And our suggested solutions are not even mutually exclusive. Why not legalize drugs and then use some of the saved money on housing needy recovering addicts?"
Friend #2:
"ER visits cost $1000 per night or so. You can run a decent hotel for $100/night or so. Require labor to clean the room and prep the food as part of the cost of a room, and I imagine you could go as cheap as $50/night. A clean utox nightly would be part of the deal. And AA/NA meetings are free. That's a 20-day rehab program right there for the cost of one ER visit. Legalizing drugs is controversial and difficult to gain consensus on. I don't think this solution has any real controversy to it, except that somebody's got to get off their butt and make it happen. Go ahead and campaign to legalize drugs if you like, but given the political and social environment in this country I don't think you'll accomplish anything but frustrating yourself, and there will still be people killing themselves and others through their drug abuse (alcohol, by the way, is legal, and still kills people and probably wastes more health care money than all other drugs combined.)"
Me:
"Aha. I was imagining you would open the program to all drug users who volunteered abstinence rather than just those who also check into an ER. It would be much more manageable if the hospitals winnowed down who gets to enter the free detox. And while I don't think the actual marginal cost to the hospital is $1000 per night of ER, your idea is certainly more feasible than legalizing drugs. (That alcohol causes much more damage to society than all illegal drugs put together is another of my favorite arguments for legalization, by the way.)"
Sam's summary:
"I'm so excited to have sparked a great discussion on this topic! My own view on the issue is basically identical to Michael's. I totally appreciate the proposed detox solution. I think it would save some money and help some people. But overall, I doubt a program like that would be implemented in very many places, or affect very many people. Politicians would yell about the evils of coddling 'bad guys,' without any concern for the aforementioned humanity of drug users and dealers. Moreover, as Pete Guither of the blog Drug WarRant (Google it if you're interested) recently put it, improvements around the edges like your proposal are mere Band-Aids on the cancer that is prohibition. I guess what I'm trying to get it is that if we're going to fight our butts off for something that currently seems politically infeasible, it may as well be a comprehensive solution that we fight for. If nothing else, we'll help move the Overton window (i.e., help shift the policy debate)."
Friend #2 continued:
"I am wondering why alcohol causing much more damage to society than all illegal drugs put together is an argument for legalization. It seems to me it's an argument that legalizing something doesn't solve anything, at least it doesn't solve what I care about by far the most, which is the havoc and destruction that substance abuse of any kind creates for the abusers and those whom they harm as a consequence of their abuse. As to whether such a system would be implemented, nothing in politics is easy."
My reply (and still waiting for more):
"We seem to agree with me that the legal status of drug consumption makes no difference on the resulting havoc and destruction. Since it makes no difference, why spend all that money on drug enforcement and incarceration? People will do drugs no matter what. Let's spend the money elsewhere (and always spend a good chunk of the savings helping addicts, who have real problems). Legalization will mean more people will do drugs, but it will always be less than then number of people who use alcohol. Society has problems with alcohol (notably the thousands killed in drunk driving accidents every year), but it gets along pretty well. Driving is very dangerous even when no one is drinking, yet no one proposes banning cars. It seems we hold on to the illogical and harmful censure of drugs purely for outdated moral reasons. Society is hanging on to anti-homosexual legislation for the same reasons. A pox on both their houses!"
Some of Sam's friends and I got into a discussion about the article. Nota bene: what follows is not for the faint of heart.
Sam's friend #1:
"'the drug war'?!? Wasn't that lost a long time ago and no one seemed to notice or even care? 'Just say NO' indeed..."
My response:
"Best just to legalize everything. People will abuse substances no matter what the government does, so we might as well acknowledge it. Money raised by taxing the drugs (and money saved by eliminating enforcement) can go to help those who are addicted and want to stop."
Friend #2:
"Ugh. Our current system is certainly broken. We don't have to go as far as legalizing drugs to make a difference... it would save a ton of money if we just provided our homeless substance dependent population with a safe clean and comfortable place to stay in exchange for abstinence. That would give them incentive to stay off the drugs, and save millions in unnecessary emergency room visits (we could cut half the beds from our psychiatric ER if these people had someplace else to go... and believe me, it's not like we're the Ritz Carlton, so clearly the other options must be pretty bad)."
Friend #1:
"...or we could just do what China does. They execute both drug dealers AND drug users."
Me:
"Sadly, executing someone in this country is incredibly expensive due to all the appeals that death row convicts feel entitled to. It would be more effective if the police executed drug dealers and drug users on sight rather than simply arresting them for subsequent trial in a court of law."
Friend #2:
Actually, I've met a number of drug users and drug dealers. They're people. I wouldn't be so quick to condemn them to death, even in an intellectual exercise.
Sam:
"I assume (and certainly hope) that they were attempting humor. Not funny, imho, but that's a matter of taste. Especially not funny, considering that in some countries (Thailand) police in fact do kill drug dealers and users, often without a trial."
Me:
"You are correct in deciphering my second comment as ironic, though my intent was satire (denouncing those who think that drug users are not deserving of due process) rather than humor (mocking drug users). My first comment was genuine, though. In response to [Friend #2]: while your suggested program to offer housing in return for abstinence would certainly work in reducing the amount of drug abuse, my instinct is that the savings in reduced ER visits would not be enough to pay for the program. Ending the war on drugs by legalizing them would be a huge savings, though. And our suggested solutions are not even mutually exclusive. Why not legalize drugs and then use some of the saved money on housing needy recovering addicts?"
Friend #2:
"ER visits cost $1000 per night or so. You can run a decent hotel for $100/night or so. Require labor to clean the room and prep the food as part of the cost of a room, and I imagine you could go as cheap as $50/night. A clean utox nightly would be part of the deal. And AA/NA meetings are free. That's a 20-day rehab program right there for the cost of one ER visit. Legalizing drugs is controversial and difficult to gain consensus on. I don't think this solution has any real controversy to it, except that somebody's got to get off their butt and make it happen. Go ahead and campaign to legalize drugs if you like, but given the political and social environment in this country I don't think you'll accomplish anything but frustrating yourself, and there will still be people killing themselves and others through their drug abuse (alcohol, by the way, is legal, and still kills people and probably wastes more health care money than all other drugs combined.)"
Me:
"Aha. I was imagining you would open the program to all drug users who volunteered abstinence rather than just those who also check into an ER. It would be much more manageable if the hospitals winnowed down who gets to enter the free detox. And while I don't think the actual marginal cost to the hospital is $1000 per night of ER, your idea is certainly more feasible than legalizing drugs. (That alcohol causes much more damage to society than all illegal drugs put together is another of my favorite arguments for legalization, by the way.)"
Sam's summary:
"I'm so excited to have sparked a great discussion on this topic! My own view on the issue is basically identical to Michael's. I totally appreciate the proposed detox solution. I think it would save some money and help some people. But overall, I doubt a program like that would be implemented in very many places, or affect very many people. Politicians would yell about the evils of coddling 'bad guys,' without any concern for the aforementioned humanity of drug users and dealers. Moreover, as Pete Guither of the blog Drug WarRant (Google it if you're interested) recently put it, improvements around the edges like your proposal are mere Band-Aids on the cancer that is prohibition. I guess what I'm trying to get it is that if we're going to fight our butts off for something that currently seems politically infeasible, it may as well be a comprehensive solution that we fight for. If nothing else, we'll help move the Overton window (i.e., help shift the policy debate)."
Friend #2 continued:
"I am wondering why alcohol causing much more damage to society than all illegal drugs put together is an argument for legalization. It seems to me it's an argument that legalizing something doesn't solve anything, at least it doesn't solve what I care about by far the most, which is the havoc and destruction that substance abuse of any kind creates for the abusers and those whom they harm as a consequence of their abuse. As to whether such a system would be implemented, nothing in politics is easy."
My reply (and still waiting for more):
"We seem to agree with me that the legal status of drug consumption makes no difference on the resulting havoc and destruction. Since it makes no difference, why spend all that money on drug enforcement and incarceration? People will do drugs no matter what. Let's spend the money elsewhere (and always spend a good chunk of the savings helping addicts, who have real problems). Legalization will mean more people will do drugs, but it will always be less than then number of people who use alcohol. Society has problems with alcohol (notably the thousands killed in drunk driving accidents every year), but it gets along pretty well. Driving is very dangerous even when no one is drinking, yet no one proposes banning cars. It seems we hold on to the illogical and harmful censure of drugs purely for outdated moral reasons. Society is hanging on to anti-homosexual legislation for the same reasons. A pox on both their houses!"
"We seem to agree with me that the legal status of drug consumption makes no difference on the resulting havoc and destruction."
ReplyDeleteYou've hardly demonstrated this. I would be very confused if making an action illegal did not discourage that action. Whether it is the right policy is a different question. Alcohol prohibition did indeed dramatically reduce alcohol consumption, and almost certainly cut back considerably on the rate of alcoholism (and the ensuing social chaos). It also enriched a generation of gangsters and killed plenty of people with contaminated booze. Legalization/decriminalization may still be the best policy, but we shouldn't expect levels of use to remain unchanged if we legalize.
Re: these hotels for addicts, comparing the cost of a real thing (ER stays) with the cost of a theoretical thing (addict hotels) isn't a good idea. I'm not clear how the addict hotels differ from existing detox facilities, and even crummy spin-dry detoxes cost a lot more than $50/person/day. If you're only admitting people who would otherwise go to ERs, aren't they likely to need a lot of (expensive) medical attention, or are we just planning on letting them ride out withdrawal and hope none of their seizures are fatal?
It is poor debating technique to provide evidence demonstrating a point that your opponent is willing to concede!
ReplyDeleteIf pressed, I certainly would have had to grant that drug use would certainly increase significantly if it were legalized. The onus of breaking laws is a disincentive which effectively raises the cost of any given illicit drug. Reduce that effective price by making it legal, and more people will opt to purchase. More debatable is whether the addiction rate would also rise significantly, or if most of the increased use would be by social or occasional drug users. I view non-addictive drug use as almost completely innocuous.
It may be poor debating technique, but it's excellent science. And I'm all for bringing the tools that have brought science unrivaled success to every other aspect of society. :-)
ReplyDeleteOne interesting aspect of the United States "war on drugs" is that it's been a major export of the United States government for some time. Prior to US DEA pressure, marijuana was legal in many countries. As a result of significant funds contributed by the US, various other countries initiated criminalization of marijuana. The DEA has a continuing presence in Thailand as well as other countries, much to the surprise of fleeing fugitives who attempt to make Thailand a home base. A recent example is Victor Bout who was set up in a sting operation by the DEA in Thailand. Curiously, Victor Bout's crime had nothing to do with drugs. It was rather crime of arms brokering (weapon sales). In recent years, the DEA has expanded its scope to include crimes outside of drugs. For an interesting article discussing the presence of fugitives and the organizations that track them in Thailand, please see Fugitives in Thailand
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point. While Mexico and Columbia get most of our anti-drug international pressure, it happens across the globe. What a tangled mess!
ReplyDelete