So it was theoretically possible to remain dead drunk for several years for an initial outlay of less than a dollar. Nevertheless, drunkenness among them far outstripped anything I have ever seen, before or since. I discovered that, when alcohol is effectively free of charge, a fifth of British construction workers will regularly go to bed so drunk that they are incontinent both of urine and feces.
I remember one man who very rarely got as far as his bed at night: he fell asleep in the lavatory, where he was usually found the next morning. Half the men shook in the mornings and resorted to the hair of the dog to steady their hands before they drove their bulldozers and other heavy machines which they frequently wrecked, at enormous expense to the British taxpayer ; hangovers were universal.
The men were either drunk or hung over for months on end. Sure, construction workers are notoriously liable to drink heavily, but in these circumstances even formerly moderate drinkers turned alcoholic and eventually suffered from delirium tremens. The heavy drinking occurred not because of the isolation of the African bush: not only did the company provide sports facilities for its workers, but there were many other ways to occupy oneself there.
Other groups of workers in the bush whom I visited, who did not have the same rights of importation of alcoholic drink but had to purchase it at normal prices, were not nearly as drunk. And when the company asked its workers what it could do to improve their conditions, they unanimously asked for a further reduction in the price of alcohol, because they could think of nothing else to ask for.
The conclusion was inescapable: that a susceptible population had responded to the low price of alcohol, and the lack of other effective restraints upon its consumption, by drinking destructively large quantities of it. The health of many men suffered as a consequence, as did their capacity for work; and they gained a well-deserved local reputation for reprehensible, violent, antisocial behavior.
It is therefore perfectly possible that the demand for drugs, including opiates, would rise dramatically were their price to fall and their availability to increase. And if it is true that the consumption of these drugs in itself predisposes to criminal behavior as data from our clinic suggest , it is also possible that the effect on the rate of criminality of this rise in consumption would swamp the decrease that resulted from decriminalization. We would have just as much crime in aggregate as before, but many more addicts.
The intermediate position on drug legalization, such as that espoused by Ethan Nadelmann, director of the Lindesmith Center, a drug policy research institute sponsored by financier George Soros, is emphatically not the answer to drug-related crime. This view holds that it should be easy for addicts to receive opiate drugs from doctors, either free or at cost, and that they should receive them in municipal injecting rooms, such as now exist in Zurich.
But just look at Liverpool, where 2, people of a population of , receive official prescriptions for methadone: this once proud and prosperous city is still the world capital of drug-motivated burglary, according to the police and independent researchers.
Of course, many addicts in Liverpool are not yet on methadone, because the clinics are insufficient in number to deal with the demand. If the city expended more money on clinics, perhaps the number of addicts in treatment could be increased five- or tenfold. But would that solve the problem of burglary in Liverpool?
No, because the profits to be made from selling illicit opiates would still be large: dealers would therefore make efforts to expand into parts of the population hitherto relatively untouched, in order to protect their profits. The new addicts would still burgle to feed their habits. Yet more clinics dispensing yet more methadone would then be needed. In fact Britain, which has had a relatively liberal approach to the prescribing of opiate drugs to addicts since I myself have prescribed heroin to addicts , has seen an explosive increase in addiction to opiates and all the evils associated with it since the s, despite that liberal policy.
A few hundred have become more than a hundred thousand. The legal and liberal provision of drugs for people who are already addicted to them will not reduce the economic benefits to dealers of pushing these drugs, at least until the entire susceptible population is addicted and in a treatment program. So long as there are addicts who have to resort to the black market for their drugs, there will be drug-associated crime.
The problem of reducing the amount of crime committed by individual addicts is emphatically not the same as the problem of reducing the amount of crime committed by addicts as a whole. I can illustrate what I mean by an analogy: it is often claimed that prison does not work because many prisoners are recidivists who, by definition, failed to be deterred from further wrongdoing by their last prison sentence.
But does any sensible person believe that the abolition of prisons in their entirety would not reduce the numbers of the law-abiding? The murder rate in New York and the rate of drunken driving in Britain have not been reduced by a sudden upsurge in the love of humanity, but by the effective threat of punishment. An institution such as prison can work for society even if it does not work for an individual. The situation could be very much worse than I have suggested hitherto, however, if we legalized the consumption of drugs other than opiates.
So far, I have considered only opiates, which exert a generally tranquilizing effect. If opiate addicts commit crimes even when they receive their drugs free of charge, it is because they are unable to meet their other needs any other way; but there are, unfortunately, drugs whose consumption directly leads to violence because of their psychopharmacological properties and not merely because of the criminality associated with their distribution.
Stimulant drugs such as crack cocaine provoke paranoia, increase aggression, and promote violence. Much of this violence takes place in the home, as the relatives of crack takers will testify.
It is something I know from personal acquaintance by working in the emergency room and in the wards of our hospital. Only someone who has not been assaulted by drug takers rendered psychotic by their drug could view with equanimity the prospect of the further spread of the abuse of stimulants. And no one should underestimate the possibility that the use of stimulant drugs could spread very much wider, and become far more general, than it is now, if restraints on their use were relaxed.
The importation of the mildly stimulant khat is legal in Britain, and a large proportion of the community of Somali refugees there devotes its entire life to chewing the leaves that contain the stimulant, miring these refugees in far worse poverty than they would otherwise experience.
The point is, however, that once the use of a stimulant becomes culturally acceptable and normal, it can easily become so general as to exert devastating social effects. You also asked if the drugs are currently legal in any state.
Since the passage of the Harrison Narcotic Act in , there have been arguments regarding the best way to handle drugs and drug addicts. The Harrison Act was the first significant piece of federal anti-drug legislation to regulate, under the taxing power of Congress, the manufacture, importation, sale, and possession of opium, coca products, and their derivatives. Proponents of drug legalization argue that prohibition in general and the "War on Drugs" that began in the 's in particular have created a black market for drugs, overloaded the criminal justice system, failed to reduce the supply of drugs, and victimized children.
Opponents argue that legalization would result in an increase in the number of drug users, destroy families, increase crime, and adverse physical effects among drug users. According to drug experts, marijuana is the most popular illegal drug. Most of the arguments for and against legalizing marijuana are the same as those for and against legalizing other illicit drugs, except for legalization proponent's contention that studies show that marijuana, used in moderation, has no serious adverse physical effects.
Neither narcotic substances nor marijuana are legal in any of the 50 states. Alaska legalized marijuana for personal use in but a referendum once again made marijuana possession illegal. Although no state has legalized these drugs, nine states have decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana: California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, and Ohio.
In addition, since , Senator Joseph Galiber of New York has been trying, since , to get a bill through the New York legislature that would legalize the use of all drugs currently considered controlled substances in that state.
I should be clear: I am talking about the legalization of harder drugs, so none of this applies to marijuana legalization. Especially since the alternative is a prohibition regime that leads to hundreds of thousands of needless arrests in the US each year and fosters violence as traffickers fight over turf or settle other beefs related to the drug trade.
For RealClearPolicy, Robert VerBruggen wrote that the opioid epidemic has forced him to confront some of his libertarian views on legalization. Nadelmann suggested this is a failure in the US in particular. After all, across the Atlantic, opioids have been more strictly regulated and an overdose crisis has so far been averted.
But the US did fail. There are many things that could have been done to stop the opioid epidemic in its tracks: The Food and Drug Administration FDA could have blocked or restricted the use of opioids — to better account for the risks of addiction and overdose, as well as the lack of scientific evidence that opioids are even effective for chronic pain.
The Drug Enforcement Administration DEA could have limited the supply of opioids and taken stronger legal action against companies that carelessly let their drugs proliferate to unscrupulous prescribers, instead of focusing on bit players, like pill mills that popped up across the country. From the misguided approval and branding of OxyContin, on the basis of information the FDA knew to be faulty, to the puzzling approval of the similar single-entity, extended-release opioids of Opana in and Zohydro in , the FDA operates on the belief that opioids are beneficial in managing chronic pain, although there is to date no persuasive evidence of their effectiveness, and only mounting proof of their morbid risk.
Attorneys and whistleblowers, even though the law that defines the violation, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, falls well within the purview of the FDA. Aggressive in opioid approvals, the FDA has been lethargic in responding to the consequences. The DEA, meanwhile, has the power to set production quotas for some opioids, like hydrocodone and oxycodone, produced for sales.
It could have used this power, as it did during past drug crises , to limit the supply of these dangerous drugs. But Frydl pointed me to data that showed that the agency has since at least let the quota for opioids rise and rise and rise — effectively relinquishing a tool it could have used to limit the rapid growth of opioid use. Much of this is the result of aggressive lobbying from pharmaceutical companies. And it often worked: In Maine, for example, drugmakers successfully pushed for a bill that required insurers to cover opioid painkillers that are supposedly harder to abuse.
In fact, the DEA admits that pharmaceutical companies played a key role in its decision making in its own statements. The DA [sic], based on the date [sic] provided, has increased the aggregate production quotas for both oxycodone for sale and hydromorphone and has determined that a hearing is not necessary. Consider cigarettes. Sure, smoking rates have come down by nearly three-fourths in the past five decades, in large part thanks to government efforts like higher taxes on cigarettes and stricter enforcement of smoking age laws.
But despite these efforts, smoking still kills an astonishing , people each year by some estimates and , by others. It would take roughly 30 years of murders, at the rate , to kill this many Americans. The U. Supreme Court has decided that because drugs are such a horrible thing, it is okay to bend the Fourth Amendment which relates to searches and seizures in order to make it easier to secure convictions in drug cases.
Drugs should not be legalized. There are also many arguments against legalization. Legalization would increase the number of casual users which, in turn, would increase the number of drug abusers. More drug users, abusers, and addicts would mean more health problems and lower economic productivity. The argument based on the analogy between alcohol and tobacco versus psychoactive drugs is weak because its conclusion—psychoactive drugs should be legalized—does not follow from its premises.
It is illogical to say that because alcohol and tobacco take a terrible toll for example, they are responsible for , premature deaths each year , a heavy toll from legalization is therefore acceptable.
0コメント