How "war on drugs" hurts Americans

I've been reading the reports about the "meth epidemic" and wondering where these reporters have been for the last 25 years. I think I started seeing "meth" or powdered amphetamine (speed) in the late 70s. My son first got involved with illegal meth 20 years ago, when he was in the Marines. And our military continues to dispense speed to pilots and others who need the positive benefits--because it has many positive benefits.

In this opinion piece in the New York times, "Debunking the Drug War, John Tierney argues that the current media rave over the "meth epidemic" is overblown hype. Of course, that's what appeals to the gasp-entertainment that passes for "news" these days.

Amphetamines can certainly do harm and are a fad in some places. But there's little evidence of a new national epidemic from patterns of drug arrests or drug use. The percentage of high school seniors using amphetamines has remained fairly constant in the past decade, and actually declined slightly the past two years.

Nor is meth diabolically addictive. If an addict is someone who has used a drug in the previous month (a commonly used, if overly broad, definition), then only 5 percent of Americans who have sampled meth would be called addicts, according to the federal government's National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

That figure is slightly higher than the addiction rate for people who have sampled heroin (3 percent), but it's lower than for crack (8 percent), painkillers (10 percent), marijuana (15 percent) or cigarettes (37 percent). Among people who have sampled alcohol, 60 percent had a drink the previous month, and 27 percent went on a binge (defined as five drinks on one occasion) during the month.

And despite the horrible statistics on alcohol use, our society has survived the re-legalization of alcohol, as has all comparable societies in countries with comparable laws. In fact, alcohol, the ubiquitous drug, seems to have always been a problem for a percentage of the population, but that percentage remains fairly constant. The same is true for other drugs--a percentage has trouble with drugs, including alcohol, but that percentage stays consistant.

Also public opinion is turning on medical marijuana use. A growing number of Americans feels it is cruel and inconsistent to (a) allow people to legally smoke themselves into lung cancer, then (b) deprive them of marijuana, a useful and non-toxic drug that allows patients to tolerate chemotherapy--yet (c) allow them to legally drink themselves to death.

Bob brought to my attention an article in Texas Monthly, "Weed All about It" (the link takes you to a small exerpt that you can access without subscription), in which Gary Cartwright points out that the "drug war" provides jobs for powerful people who oppose decriminalization--people involved in the prosecution and incarceration of drug users. He also reports that powerful conservatives are supporting the decriminalization of marijuana.

In my social issues course, the textbook identified as "illegal services" crimes like drugs, gambling, prostitution. These do not involve criminals versus victims (i.e. "victimless"), nor do they involve coercion. These crimes involve illegal services that are sought by the "criminal."

When illegal services are lumped together with violent crimes, it's time to wonder who this lumping together serves. Cartwright argues that it serves the people who make their living from this conflation of crimes. This is a conflict of interest that is supported by government institutions and by the people who profit from keeping Americans afraid.