War On Drugs

[Dr. Shane]

If the objective of the War on Drugs is to prevent drug addicts from getting or using drugs, it is destined to fail. However if the objective is to prevent those not addicted from becoming addicted and treat those that are addicted, its success must be measured quite differently.

Prohibition

Ellen White favored prohibition so much she said that we should vote for it even if it meant voting on Sabbath. Was she right? Or was she influenced too much by the religious conservatives of her day?

We don't have statistics for the amount of alcohol consumed in the United States during prohibition however we have the numbers for before and after. It took nearly forty years for the per capita alcohol consumption to return to the same level after prohibition than it was before prohibition. 33 years is generally considered a generation so in that view, it took over a generation for Americans to return to their pre-prohibition levels of alcohol consumption. That is an incredible statistic! That means prohibition worked. Americans consumed a lot less alcohol during and in the years following prohibition than they did before.

The overwhelming majority of Americans that had favored prohibition and successfully gotten the Constitution amended were convinced to repeal prohibition because they were told repealing it would break the back of organized crime. Gangsters like Al Capone has become sensationalized in the news during prohibition and the public viewed the evils of organized crime as greater than the evils of alcohol. Yet, decades after prohibition was repealed, organized crime continues to thrive. It seems it is the repeal of prohibition that has failed - not prohibition itself.

Prohibition had two major problems that the War on Drugs does not have. Many local police chiefs and sheriffs only selectively enforced it. That is, that let some moonshiners produce alcohol while arresting others. This type of thing rarely occurs with the illegal drugs of today but was commonplace during prohibition. The other problem was that alcohol was legal in both of the countries bordering the United States. However most of the drugs that are illegal in the United States today are also illegal in Mexico and Canada.

The War Fronts

The War on Drugs has many fronts.

Law Enforcement

Law enforcement is at every level from the Border Patrol and Coast Guard to the FBI, local and state police agencies. The great purpose of law enforcement is to reduce the supply of drugs on the street which has the direct impact of increasing the cost. The increased cost serves as one deterrent to prevent those not addicted to drugs from using them. Law enforcment also arrests and imprisons those using and selling drugs. That is another deterrent to prevent those not addicted to drugs from using them.

Treatment

The treatment front in the War on Drugs is aimed at helping those already addicted to drugs have an opportunity to break free. It is because of this that I, myself, was able to find freedom from drug addiction. Treatment is often mandated by the court, provided in prison or jail and/or paid for by the government through medical assistance programs for those that have not gotten into any legal trouble. The success rate depends mostly on the individual. The most the government can do is provide the treatment. It is the individual who ultimately decides whether or not it will be successful.

Education

The education front combined with the law enforcement front is really the 1-2-punch in the War on Drugs. Through education children starting in Kindergarten are taught the danger and consequences of using drugs. This education takes place mostly in the school and through government sponsored ads aired during children's programming. Many celebrities have given of their time to educate children against the use of drugs.

Church

There are faith-based and charitable organizations like the Salvation Army that receive government funds for shelters and treatment centers that target drug addicts. I am not aware of any statistics on their success rates but know many of those they deal with also have issues with mental illness which complicates any treatment they receive for drug addiction.

Many churches have anti-drug and youth programs. The Seventh-day Adventist's magazine Listen is one of the best resources for these types of programs. The magazine offers teaching guide which can be used in conjunction with the magazine itself.

[Bravus]

My "misguided 'War on Drugs'" comment in the other thread was partly joking - as 'grow the dope out in the sun as God intended' hopefully tipped people off. But I do have some issues with it.

Let me first say that I'm not saying drugs are a good or positive thing, in any way. Some are more harmful than others, and some are proscribed more as the result of historical accidents than in proportion to the actual harm they do, but all are harmful in one way or another. I'd be very happy to see all of them disappear from society.

But the misguided 'War on Drugs' is like the misguided 'War on Terror' - the use of the wrong means tending to have the opposite effect to the intended one. Both are unwinnable by definition (unless the definition is changed, as Shane has suggested above).

Prohibition reduced alcohol consumption but dramatically increased and funded organised crime. Drug prohibition does the same. We can argue about whether decrinimalising drugs would lead to increased use - I suspect a slight initial increase and a new plateau - but criminalising them clearly does not make them disappear, it just puts their manufacture and distribution in the hands of criminals, and finances their other activities.

If drugs were legal, then they would be clean and safe, not cut with other worse drugs, poisons or insecticides - so their effects would be more predictable. If drugs were legal, those who wanted help getting off them could get it without also falling into the legal system and ending up in jail. Campaigns to help people stop smoking have been very successful, without prohibition.

There is no good answer to the problem - Pandora's Box is open. There are bad solutions and worse solutions, and the past 5 decades or so suggest that the War on Drugs may well be a worse solution.

[Dr. Shane]

I think we would see a dramatic increase in the use of drugs but it would take a generation or more just as it did when alcohol was made legal.

Organized crime existed before prohibition and it continues. If drugs were made legal, organized crime would just find something else to deal - prostitution, human trafficking, gun running, etc. The only way to stop organized crime is to make all crime legal.

It is the libertarian movement that favors legalizing drugs. Both liberals and conservatives in the United States agree with the prohibition placed on illegal drugs.

Treatment for drug addiction is available without the person falling into the legal system. I got help for my drug addiction without getting involved in the legal system. Now the fact that illegal drugs are not safe and clean is itself a deterrent which is emphasized through education.

[Bravus]

Heh - guess I'm out to the right with the libertarians on this one, not over on the left!

[Dr. Shane]

Just tagging on here...

Now how can one be for the War on Drugs and pro-choice (like me)? I mean, the War on Drugs forces morality on others while pro-choice lets others decide for themselves whether or not abortion is murder.

This is my reasoning. If the only purpose of the War on Drugs was to stop drug addicts from using, I would not support it. That is a losing battle which will never be won. Dug addicts need to be dealt with on an individual basis and have treatment options available to them. That is the only way to deal with the addicts themselves. However in the War on Drugs, the addicts themselves are only part of the picture. If drugs are made legal, consumption of them will spread throughout society just as alcohol consumption has. That will create even greater problems than those we now deal with. Since the War on Drugs does deter non-addicts from using and becoming addicted to drugs, one must admit it is accomplishing a noble goal.

Abortion, on the other hand, occurs only in a small percentage of women. It has been legal in many countries about a generation in many countries and indications are that the rate of abortion is about the same in countries where it is legal as in those where it is still illegal. In fact, studies show that the countries with the lowest rate of abortion are those where it is legal but restricted and regulated. The reasons women that seek abortions do so is often out of fear and desperation. Making abortion illegal does not deal with its causes and since these women are so desperate and afraid, the law means nothing to them. They fear their circumstances more than they fear the law. Thus by making abortion legal while restricting and regulating it, society can deal with its root causes and actually decrease the number of abortions performed.

The mental state of a woman seeking an abortion can be compared to the mental state of a drug addict. If legalizing drugs would not cause those not addicted to them from becoming addicted to them, it may be a good policy. However the history of alcohol (which is a drug) in the United States gives us reason to believe that over a generation's time drug use would increase significantly if drugs were made legal. So I favor keeping abortion legal (but restricting and regulating it more) because that appears to be the best way of discouraging it. I favor continuing the War on Drugs because that seems to be the best way of discouraging it.