totse.com | Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization

NOTICE: TO ALL CONCERNED Certain text files and messages contained on this site deal with activities and devices which would be in violation of various Federal, State, and local laws if actually carried out or constructed. The webmasters of this site do not advocate the breaking of any law. Our text files and message bases are for informational purposes only. We recommend that you contact your local law enforcement officials before undertaking any project based upon any information obtained from this or any other web site. We do not guarantee that any of the information contained on this system is correct, workable, or factual. We are not responsible for, nor do we assume any liability for, damages resulting from the use of any information on this site.

Assertion II: We Have Made Significant Progress In Reducing Drug Use In This Country. Now Is Not The Time To Abandon Our Efforts

Assertion III: Legalization Of Drugs Will Lead To Increased Use And Increased Addiction Levels

Assertion IV: Any Revenues Generated By Taxing Legalized Drugs Would Quickly Evaporate In Light Of The Increased Social Costs

Assertion V: There Are No Compelling Medical Reasons To Prescribe Marijuana Or Heroin To Sick People

Assertion VI: Legalization And Decriminalization Of Drugs Have Been A Dismal Failure In Other Nations

Assertion VII: Alcohol Has Caused Significant Health, Social, And Crime Problems In This Country, And Legalized Drugs Would Only Make This Situation Worse

Assertion VIII: Drug Control Spending Is A Minor Portion Of The U.S. Budget, And Compared To The Costs Of Drug Abuse, Spending Is Minuscule

Assertion X: Legalization Would Have An Adverse Effect On Low-Income Communities

Members of law enforcement, educational, prevention, and social service communities are frequently faced with the need to address many of the positions which are advocated by those calling for the legalization of drugs. More and more, the debate on legalization is being given public airing in the media. Average citizens, who have grown weary of the problems associated with crime and drugs, are being told that legalization is a reasonable alternative to the crime problem that so many communities are struggling against.

Legalization, however, is not an alternative, but rather a surrender that will further reduce our quality of life. Vast majorities of the American people agree that legalization of drugs would complicate an already devastating situation. Health and social costs associated with the increased availability of drugs would unduly stress our economy. Crime would not decrease. The moral fiber of our country would be torn apart.

Those who advocate legalization have many motives. Frequently, however, they do not have answers to the myriad of questions we are asking. Legalization is an abstract to many of them. Law enforcement officers at the local, state, and federal levels have witnessed first-hand the damage caused by drugs. The devastating effects of drugs are real and lasting. It is not the drug laws, or the enforcement of the drug laws that cause harm, it is the drugs themselves.

Because we are often called on to speak to the issues, this booklet was created through the assistance of a number of professionals from the law enforcement, health, and academic communities. Members of the aforementioned communities convened for two days in Quantico, Virginia to discuss how we can most accurately frame the arguments against legalization.

As local law enforcement officials are on the front line in the battle against drug abuse, several police chiefs participated in the Quantico Forum to offer their expertise and guidance as we formulated our response to these issues. This guide represents most of the issues and arguments raised during that time. It is intended as a resource for you in responding to the questions and issues associated with the debate on the legalization of drugs. While many professionals participated in the session, the views represented in this document are the position of the Drug Enforcement Administration. They represent the consensus of the assembled group without necessarily attributing each and every position to the personal views of each participant.

Please feel free to use the guide in whatever way you feel is appropriate. The debate on the legalization of drugs cannot be won if we remain silent.

Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization was developed by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in response to innumerable requests by law enforcement executives, community leaders, substance abuse prevention counselors, parent and family advocates, and others for the assistance of DEA in responding to legalization issues and questions.

We well understand that responding to these issues and answering these questions can be a challenge. Questions about legalization often touch on many issues: crime, violence, criminal justice and economic costs, health, behavior, community and social life, and employment and productivity.

Few are prepared to answer such diverse questions thoroughly, let alone stay current on the research and spot the flaws and distortions in others' arguments. Yet, questions are asked and they must be answered. This booklet offers you a strategy and resource for doing so.

Discussions about legalization are usually abstract and theoretical, which is very conducive to proponents of legalization; a dialogue without boundaries or benchmarks works to their advantage. For those engaged in the day-to-day work of the real solution to America's drug problem--reducing the supply and the demand for illegal drugs, as well as addressing the criminal activity caused by drug trafficking and use--taking time out to discuss legalization questions can be a frustrating undertaking. Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization offers you the resource information to discuss this issue in a reasonable and informed manner.

DEA is unequivocally opposed to the legalization of illicit drugs (including, marijuana, hemp, and hemp seed oil).

(4) remove the social sanction against drug abuse that is reinforced in legislation.

The present social problems in the United States, including crime, health problems, and poverty, are substantial and will only be exacerbated if drugs are legalized. The arguments for legalization are a sad and bitter offering to the most vulnerable segment of our population. Legalization would increase risks and costs to individuals, families, and communities, indeed, to every part of the nation, without compensating benefits.

When DEA asked law enforcement executives, community leaders, and prevention advocates exactly what they want and need to address legalization questions, the answers were clear. They said, "It is essential that the facts regarding the true implications of the legalization issue be presented. Help us to explain this complex issue to our families, friends, and fellow citizens. Put it in words everyone can understand. And give us the support we need to continue to make the case until it doesn't have to be made anymore."

Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization is the first step in helping to deliver the credible, consistent message about the risks and costs of the legalization of drugs to people in terms that make sense to them. The anti-legalization message is effective when communicated by representatives of the Federal Government, but takes on even more credibility when it comes from those in the community who can put the legalization debate in local perspective.

DEA will continue the ongoing work of responding to your inquiries, updating and expanding this guide as necessary and evaluating its usefulness and impact. We invite you to provide your views on this publication.

We hope Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization will be used in several ways. For local law enforcement executives, community leaders, prevention advocates and others, it should serve, first, as an open invitation to join in making the affirmative case against legalization. Second, it provides background and practical answers to the most commonly asked questions about the legalization of drugs.

Any proposal with the potential to do these things is unacceptable. As public policy, it is fundamentally flawed.

The following three factors should be considered when discussing the legalization issue.

First, according to reliable public opinion polls, the majority of the American people and lawmakers agree that drugs should not be legalized.

Second, when discussing legalization, it is important that all available information and experiences be brought into the open. This can be accomplished by asking the tough questions (please refer to page 9). Insist that any discussion be based on a specific definition of how legalization should be implemented, not an abstract theory.

Third, maintain optimism. This is a long and difficult effort we are undertaking to get our issues on the table and be heard. Eventually, the climate will change and pro-legalization arguments will again be out of fashion. While the debate appears to be cyclical, having more resonance in certain circumstances, we must continue to impress upon audiences, and ultimately the American people, that legalization would be a devastating defeat to the commitment that so many have made to living free, healthy, and safely in our nation.

In August 1994, in an effort to identify compelling arguments against legalization, DEA sponsored a two-day Anti-Legalization Forum at Quantico, Virginia, for experts in the field. Several police chiefs, representatives from Government agencies, and private sector authorities dedicated their time to this important task. The participants were asked to refine the arguments that can be made against legalization and evaluate ways to address the legalization issue in an effective and meaningful way.

Three groups were formed to discuss various aspects of the legalization debate: Social/Economic issues, Health Effects, and Crime and Violence. All of the arguments espoused by legalization proponents impact on these three areas, and many of the claims outlined in this publication transcend the topics discussed by the three groups. At the end of the two-day session, group leaders presented the recommendations of each group.

While individual groups arrived at specific conclusions, there were a number of general concerns and ideas raised by all participants:

Those speaking against legalization need to be positive and confident about that position. Legalization opponents must constantly ask just how many drug addicts will be created under legalization, and who will pay for the social, criminal, and other associated costs of legalization.

Legalization opponents often have a hard time being heard. Although only a small minority of academics, social scientists, and other public figures advocate legalization, the forum participants felt that the legalization advocates make better use of the media (in particular the Internet) in making their opinions known than the far larger group of legalization opponents. A current climate of frustration with crime, violence, and drug abuse is fueling the legalization debate, while accomplishments in controlling drugs do not get adequate attention. The costs of the fight against drugs are generally not put in perspective, and the costs of inaction are never discussed. Nevertheless, forum participants agreed that a positive, proactive campaign against legalization could be very effective.

Legalization proponents are formidable opponents. The forum participants acknowledged that proponents of legalization are generally well-prepared and credible people whose arguments, though compelling, are faulty. Proponents effectively use lawyers and public relations firms to espouse liberalization of drug policies.

Misperceptions drive the debate. The legalization debate is being driven by the perception that the costs of solving the drug problem in America are far too high. The group cited public mistrust of government and a perception that federal agencies attacking the problem are fragmented and have no consensus about direction as reasons that the legalization debate rings true with many people. There are also numerous misperceptions about the foreign experience relating to drug legalization and the system for prescribing heroin. Forum participants stressed the need to bring to the forefront the facts relative to the British, Dutch, and Swiss legalization experiments. Americans are frustrated by the drug problem. While an overwhelming majority of the American people are not convinced that legalization is an effective option, there is a sense of frustration that we have spent so much money on controlling drug trafficking and use, yet violence and crime continue. The group noted that most Americans erroneously think that legalization advocates are only suggesting that marijuana be legalized, and are generally unaware of the dramatic impact that legalizing cocaine and heroin will have.

The debate must not take place in the abstract. The debate on legalization must be refocused from its current abstract conceptualization to a common sense scenario. Audiences need to understand that of all the current illicit drug users age 18-49, 70 percent are employed full-time according to the 1994 & 1997 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse published by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). This fact has very clear implications for society. For example, the school bus driver who drives your children to school may smoke marijuana, the surgeon who operates on you may have cocaine in his system, and the driver behind you may be under the influence of methamphetamine. The debate needs to demonstrate graphically how the common person will be impacted by drug legalization.

Certain segments of the media, certain quarters in academia, and some frustrated Americans see legalization as an option that should be discussed. The forum participants discussed some of the factors possibly motivating advocates of legalization in order to appreciate the complexity of the debate. The group noted that many who advocate legalization are attempting to "normalize" drug use, and that many may be people who have tried drugs without significant adverse consequences.

Others see potential profit in legalizing drugs, and still others simply believe that individual rights to take drugs should be protected. The group also acknowledged that the legalization concept appeals to people who may be looking for simple solutions to the devastating problem of drug abuse.

There was consensus among the forum participants on the need to ask a number of questions of those proposing legalization. Too often, the specifics of how to implement a system for the distribution and sale of legalized drugs are never discussed. Instead, simplistic rhetoric is used to deflect serious consideration of the many questions that must be thought through before one can evaluate the ramifications of their proposals. This is the great weakness of the pro-legalization position. Participants in the Forum suggested that the following questions be asked consistently in order to illustrate the shallowness of the legalization concept.

Should all drugs be legalized? Who will determine which segments of the population will have access to legalized drugs?

Who will be liable for damages caused by drug use, and the activities of those taking drugs?

How will absenteeism and loss of productivity be addressed by business? Who will bear the costs of lost productivity, consumers, stockholders?

Will the local drug situation in a community dictate which drugs are sold where? How will society care for and pay for the attendant social costs of increased drug use, including family disintegration and child neglect?

Who will bear the costs of the expansion of social service and welfare programs that may be necessary to care for increased drug addicts through drug legalization? Would taxpayers bear this expense through increased taxes, would funding for other programs such as education be reduced?

Will people still need prescriptions for currently controlled medications, such as antibiotics, if drugs are legalized?

How will we deal with the influx of people to the United States who will seek legal drugs?

Should the distribution outlets be located in the already overburdened inner city?

The three groups discussing legalization at Quantico touched on a number of significant issues. It was evident to the participants that the pro-legalization arguments have remained fairly consistent over the years and that there are ten major assertions that can be made in opposition of legalization.

We have attempted to provide the ten simple, compelling assertions to help you frame your arguments against legalization. Facts, quotes, and statistics support the following assertions. Periodically, these assertions will need to be updated to ensure that the most current information is being used to craft arguments against legalization.

Proponents of legalization contend that if drugs were legalized, crime and violence would decrease. They believe that it is the illegal nature of drug production, trafficking, and use that fuels crime and violence. They state that turf wars, gang activity, and drug-related crimes are the result of the illegal nature of the drug trade. Proponents state that users commit crimes to pay for drugs now because they cannot easily obtain them. If drugs were legal, they say, the enormous profits associated with drugs because of their illegal status would evaporate and, once gone, the black market and criminal activity associated with drugs would also be eliminated.

Participants in the Anti-Legalization Forum, who are experts in crime and violence, disagreed strongly with the notion that crime and violence would be reduced if drugs were legalized. It is widely claimed by those advancing the case for legalization that crime is largely committed by drug traffickers protecting their areas of distribution. Sadly, it is the experience of many local police officers that crime is committed not only because people want to buy drugs, but more often because people use drugs. There is no denying the fact that drug use changes behavior and exacerbates criminal activity.

The experts also believe that legalization will lead to greater availability of drugs, which will, in turn, lead to increased use. The use of drugs, especially cocaine, crack, methamphetamine, and PCP, is often associated with violent criminal behavior. There is ample evidence that demonstrates the links between drugs, violence, and crime. Additionally, links between alcohol, a currently legal substance, and crime are well documented. Police can attest to the fact that alcohol plays a significant role in domestic violence cases. Drug use would only swell the statistics regarding crime, even if the drugs were legally purchased.

Legalization proponents ignore the fact that frequently, the people committing violent crimes are career criminals who will not stop their illegal activities once drugs are legalized; they will instead seek new sources of illicit revenue. Criminal activity would not be reduced as a result of drug legalization any more than criminal activity disappeared after the repeal of Prohibition.

The forum participants discussed the fallacy that legalizing drugs would eliminate the black market environment that seems to fuel the drug trade and its attendant violence. The existence of a black market is heavily dependent on the parameters set by the legalization proponents: which drugs would be legal, the potency level of drugs, and the age at which legal drugs could be purchased. If drugs were legal for persons over 18, for example, drug traffickers would still target those 17 and younger; if only marijuana were legalized, drug traffickers would continue to traffic in heroin and cocaine.

The following facts, which confirm the observations of the forum participants, may be used in debates:

A report in the Journal of the American Medical Association (7/6/94) reports that cocaine use is linked to high rates of homicide in New York City and that "homicide victims may have provoked violence through irritability, paranoid thinking or verbal and physical aggression which are known to be pharmacological effects of cocaine."

Data from the special report, "Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997," completed by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, revealed that the following percentages of state prison inmates involved in violent offenses reported that they had used drugs at the time the offense was committed:

Violent Offenses: 29 percent Murder: 26.8 percent Sexual Assault (Including Rape): 21.5 percent Robbery: 39.9 percent Assault: 24.2 percent

Data from the National Institute of Justice (U.S. Department of Justice) April, 1999 International Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (I-ADAM) program underscore the crime-drug link. Among detained arrestees in the United States, 68.3 percent tested positive for either marijuana, opiates, cocaine, amphetamines, benzodiazepines, or methadone. Among female arrestees ages 31-35, 44.4 percent tested positive for using multiple drugs (measured by two or more positive tests).

The special report, "Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997," also revealed that 33 percent of state and 22 percent of federal prisoners said they were under the influence of drugs when they committed their offense, compared to 31 percent and 17 percent in 1991. Furthermore, approximately one in six of both state and federal prisoners said in 1997 they committed their offense to get money for drugs.

Another finding of the study indicated that approximately 75 percent of all prisoners can be characterized as being involved with alcohol or drug abuse in the time leading up to their arrest.

Mitchell S. Rosenthal, M.D., president of a major New York City drug treatment center, Phoenix House, and chairman of the New York State Advisory Council on Substance Abuse, notes that one of the basic contentions of advocates of legalization is that drug users are essentially normal people. Actually, Dr. Rosenthal said in a speech in 1993, drugs undo the bounds that keep many seemingly normal people on an even keel. "The treatment community does not contend that society is at risk from the behavior of all drug abusers or even the great majority of them," he said. "The case for prohibition rests on the substantial number of abusers who cross the line from permissible self-destruction to become 'driven' people, who are 'out of control' and put others in danger of their risk taking, violence, abuse, or HIV infection."

According to the "1998 Annual Report on Drug Use Among Adult and Juvenile Arrestees," completed by the National Institute of Justice, marijuana is the primary drug used by an overwhelming majority of juvenile arrestees. Positive rates for marijuana use in the 13 ADAM sites that test male juvenile arrestees ranged from 64% in Phoenix to 35% in San Jose.

ASSERTION II: WE HAVE MADE SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS IN REDUCING DRUG USE IN THIS COUNTRY. NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO ABANDON OUR EFFORTS.

Legalization advocates claim that the fight against drugs has not been won and is, in fact, unconquerable. They frequently state that people still take drugs, drugs are widely available, and that efforts to change this are futile. Legalization advocates contend that legalization is the alternative.

The forum participants disagreed with the notion that we should legalize drug use because people use drugs. The experts agreed that there have been many positive developments over the past 15 years in reducing drug use and that such positive developments are not afforded adequate publicity. The Nations drug problem did not happen overnight, and it will take a number of years to eliminate. Legalization is not an alternative.

The United States faces a number of challenges today--which like our drug problem are not resolvable through easy solutions--including illegal immigration, the decline of quality education, and public health problems. Should we abdicate ourselves of the need to enforce equitable immigration laws? Should we declare that our education system is an irreparable failure? Should we throw up our hands in frustration about cancer, or AIDS and halt researching for cures? Clearly such suggestions are preposterous. We are a people committed to solving problems, not avoiding them. Why should our commitment to stopping drugs be any different from our approach to other national interests?

Furthermore, ask proponents of legalization just what they are proposing be legalized. Just marijuana? Marijuana and heroin? All drugs? And for what age group? Will children be able to buy drugs? Will prescriptions be necessary? And what will they tolerate as the price of legalization? A permanent underclass of drug users? Will a 10 percent increase in the number of traffic fatalities be accepted? What about 50 percent? Would they be relieved to know that their child care provider had been smoking legally-purchased marijuana? How many drug addicted new borns are too many?

The following facts, which confirm the observations of the forum participants, may be used in debates:

The 1998 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse demonstrates unequivocally that drug use declined significantly between 1979 and 1998.

In 1998, an estimated 13.6 million Americans were current illicit drug users, meaning they had used an illicit drug in the month prior to the interview. By comparison, the number of current illicit drug users in 1979 was approximately 25 million, the nations highest level.

In 1998 the number of current cocaine users was estimated at 1.8 million. By comparison, the estimate in 1997 was 1.5 million; the increase in 1998 is not statistically significant. Furthermore, cocaine use peaked in 1985 with 5.7 million users.

According to the 1998 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 9.9 percent of youths age 12-17 reported current use of an illicit drug. Current use is defined as use within the 30 days prior to the respondents completion of the survey. This represents a statistically significant decrease from the estimate of 11.4 percent in 1997.

Teenage drug consumption, despite recent upturns, is down in the long term. There is an obvious concern in the United States about the consumption of drugs by teenagers, the adults of tomorrow. Recent resurgence demonstrates the necessity to continue efforts of the past decade: combine law enforcement, education, and international efforts to address all aspects of the drug situation. The Monitoring the Future Study, conducted annually by University of Michigan research scientists for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has been tracking the drug consumption of American high school seniors since the 1970s. In recent years, the study has been broadened to include drug use by 10th and 8th grade students as well.

According to the 1998 Monitoring the Future Survey released by the Department of Health and Human Services, drug use among adolescents was found to be stable among the proportion of 12th graders using most illicit drugs in the past month, including the most frequently used drug, marijuana. Furthermore, decreases in the use of marijuana, alcohol, and cigarettes among 10th graders were also noted. Additionally, the survey indicates evidence of a gradual decline in drug use during 1997 and 1998 among 8th graders.

According to the 1998 Monitoring the Future Study, past year use of any illicit drug among 10th graders decreased from 38.5 percent in 1997 to 35.0 percent in 1998. Past year use among 8th graders decreased from 23.6 percent in 1996 to 21.0 percent in 1998.

ASSERTION III: LEGALIZATION OF DRUGS WILL LEAD TO INCREASED USE AND INCREASED ADDICTION LEVELS.

A cornerstone of the legalization proponents' position is the claim that making illegal drugs legal would not cause more of these substances to be consumed, nor would addiction increase. They claim that many people can use drugs in moderation and that many would choose not to use drugs, just as many abstain from alcohol and tobacco now.

Forum participants, however, suggest that if drugs were more widely available, as they certainly would be if they were legalized, rates of use and addiction would increase. Legalizing drugs sends a message that drug use (like tobacco and alcohol) is acceptable, and encourages drug use among people who currently do not use drugs.

Look to our history. For years, the United States legally refined morphine from opium and hailed it as a miracle drug. Many soldiers on both sides of the Civil War who were given morphine for their wounds became addicted to it. Will we accept more morphine addicts? Crack addicts? Heroin addicts?

Early in the 20th Century, drugs were plentiful, cheap, and legal in the United States. Some could even be bought from the Sears Catalogue. But Americans realized that these legalized drugs were harmful to individuals and society, and drug laws were enacted. Legalization proponents would have these statutes repealed and make opium readily available.

The experts believe that legalization of drugs would decrease the perception of risk currently associated with drug use. The group strongly endorsed the notion that the government should help protect people from substances and activities that are harmful to them, the community, and society at large.

The following facts, which confirm the observations of the forum participants, may be used in debates:

Dr. Herbert Kleber, the prominent Yale University psychiatrist and former Demand Reduction Deputy Director at the Office of National Drug Control Policy and currently with the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, stated in a 1994 article in the New England Journal of Medicine that clinical data support the premise that drug use would increase with legalization.

He said: "There are over 50 million nicotine addicts, 18 million alcoholics or problem drinkers, and fewer than 2 million cocaine addicts in the United States. Cocaine is a much more addictive drug than alcohol. If cocaine were legally available, as alcohol and nicotine are now, the number of cocaine abusers would probably rise to a point somewhere between the number of users of the other two agents, perhaps 20 to 25 million...the number of compulsive users might be nine times higher...than the current number. When drugs have been widely available-as... cocaine was at the turn of the century-both use and addiction have risen."

England's experience when heroin is widely available, shows that use and addiction increase. When Great Britain allowed doctors to prescribe heroin to addicts there was an explosion in the rate of use, and by the mid-1980s known addiction rates were increasing by about 30 percent a year. According to the Lancet, the respected British medical journal (Lancet, January 9, 1982), 2,657 heroin addicts were registered in 1970 compared with 5,107 in 1980.

This was a program in which heroin users needed a doctor's authorization to get their drug. What would happen if anyone wanting to try heroin could simply buy it at the government store?

Legalization was given a lengthy try closer to home when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in 1975 that the state could not interfere with a person's possession of marijuana in his home for personal use. Enforcement was permitted only when the quantity possessed exceeded four ounces - this in a state that, because of the long, sunny days of its brief growing season, produces extremely potent marijuana.

The court's ruling was interpreted by many Alaskans as a signal to begin using, which many did, including children, even though the ruling was limited to persons 19 and over. According to a 1988 University of Alaska study, the state's 12 to 17-year-olds used marijuana at more than twice the national average for their age group.

"The frequency with which marijuana was used within the current sample," the report on the study said, "suggests that it is not an experimental event for many students, but that it seems to have become well incorporated into the lifestyle of many adolescents."

Although they historically cling to their personal liberties, Alaskas residents voted in 1990 to recriminalize possession of marijuana, demonstrating their belief that increased use was too high a price to pay for increased personal liberties. In 1998, however, the medicinal use of marijuana was legalized for specific maladies with a physicians recommendation that an individual may benefit from the use of marijuana.

Will the public support an aggressive marketing approach? While "government drugs" could conceivably be priced low enough to eliminate competition, perhaps by having taxpayers subsidize them to discourage a black market, the combination of low price and wide availability may result in greater consumption, and consequently increased addiction. We would have won the battle and lost the war. If they see this as the probable outcome, the American people can hardly be expected to endorse a "sell at all costs" policy.

Robert L. DuPont, M.D., former director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, considered the impact legalization would have on use and addiction rates in a paper published in 1994.

Dr. Dupont offered the following sentiment "Would legalization increase the number of drug users and the social harm produced by the use of drugs?" "The answer to those two questions is simply, yes, it would."

Dr. Dupont further stated that the current global experience with alcohol and tobacco reveals the downside of legalization.

"Legalization of any drugs leads to large increases in the use of the legalized drugs," he said. "Because most of the social costs of drugs are not the costs of prohibition but the costs created by the drug use itself (a point proved beyond dispute by the dismal global experience with alcohol and tobacco), legalization raises the net social costs of drug use."

"Legalization is an old, siren call which promises to reduce the high costs of drug use, but which abundant evidence shows would inevitably raise the costs society pays for drug use, not reduce them. We do not need new experiments to make this point."

ASSERTION IV: ANY REVENUES GENERATED BY TAXING LEGALIZED DRUGS WOULD QUICKLY EVAPORATE IN LIGHT OF THE INCREASED SOCIAL COSTS.

A favorite argument in support of legalization is that education, health care, road building, and a wide array of other worthwhile causes would benefit from the taxes that could be raised by legalizing drugs and then taxing them.

The forum participants were extremely skeptical about the claim of a large tax windfall, and challenged advocates to prove that the amounts of revenue potentially generated by legalization would counterbalance the increased social costs that would result from making drugs legal. When asked for specifics, the advocates have no answers. Are they taking into account the erosion of the tax base as more and more citizens are unable to work because of drug addiction? Add to this loss the cost of health and welfare benefits for the unemployed.

Health and societal costs of drug legalization would increase. The panel predicted that drug treatment costs, hospitalization for long-term drug-related disease, and treatment of the consequences of family violence would further burden our already strapped health care system.

There is also real reason to believe that liability suits would be brought against manufacturers and distributors of drugs as damages to individuals increased, thereby increasing the cost of products. On November 23, 1998, the Attorneys General and other representatives of 46 states, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam and the District of Columbia signed an agreement with the five largest tobacco manufacturers (i.e., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, Lorillard Tobacco Company, Philip Morris Incorporated, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Commonwealth Tobacco, and Liggett & Myers). This settlement brought to a conclusion a four-year legal battle between the states and the tobacco industry, which was initiated in 1994 when Mississippi became the first state to file suit. Prior to this settlement four states (i.e., Florida, Minnesota, Mississippi, and Texas) reached a $40 billion settlement with tobacco manufacturers. The 1998 settlement establishes the payment of over $206 billion to the states over the next 25 years beginning in June 2000. Although the cost of this settlement will largely be passed on to the end consumer, what corporation would become involved in the manufacture and distribution of far more dangerous substances if currently illicit substances were legalized, and face similar legal action?

Legalization proponents must realize the increased costs that would be incurred through the damaging effects of drugs. Would the alleged profits from drug legalization offset the acute and chronic effects of increases in fetal defects, loss of workforce productivity, traffic fatalities, industrial accidents, domestic violence, and other problems? The increased financial costs of drug legalization pale in comparison, however, to the increased social and emotional costs that American families would suffer.

The following facts, which confirm the observations of the forum participants, may be used in debates:

Dr. William Olson, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics Matters, outlined the magnitude of the social costs borne now by U.S. taxpayers because of drugs. In his 1994 essay, "Drug Legalization: Getting to No," he provided the following:

25-60 percent of the homeless are addicts, whose homelessness is in large part the result of addiction and their inability to manage money or make rational, reasonable decisions. They are increasingly supported at public expense.

75-80 percent of the 1.2 - 1.5 million teenage runaways are substance abusers, and not because prohibition made them use drugs or runaway.

30-50 percent of mental patients are chemical abusers, 50-60 percent of these use crack and cocaine. They are largely on public support.

2.5 percent of all live births, some 100,000 infants are born addicted to cocaine. They have lifelong learning disabilities and emotional problems.

$50 billion is devoted annually to dealing with the health care costs of drug addiction and its collateral costs. These costs will not disappear with legalization.

There is no way to predict how much revenue the United States Government, through taxing legalized drugs, would generate. Such a scenario depends entirely upon the parameters of legalization, and what the policy means vis-a-vis sources of drugs. If U.S. farmers were given subsidies to produce drugs (as they are given subsidies for tobacco) the U.S. taxpayers would be responsible for paying for these subsidies. This in an age when farm subsidies for crops such as corn and wheat are being called into question. If foreign sources of drugs (opium or coca) were allowed to supply the raw material for these products, an elaborate system of tariffs and trade preferences would need to be established.

Taxes would likely add to the cost of the product, consequently increasing the expense incurred by the consumer. Surely the increased cost of legalized drugs would not eliminate drug trafficking organizations, which would provide drugs to consumers at a lower cost with unregulated potency via a continued black-market. Drug trafficking organizations do not provide a share of their receipts to their respective governments; they are purely profit driven. Consequently, any entity entering into competition with drug organizations, including the U.S. Government would have to be purely profit driven as well, doing anything necessary to remain competitive.

Legalized gambling has not put an end to illegal gambling. In fact, legalized gambling has contributed to the myriad of people who cannot control their need to gamble. Many states have entered into the gambling industry in an effort to raise funds for public purposes. While some of these efforts have been successful, as more jurisdictions become involved the profits decline through increased competition. Meanwhile, bookies ply their trade as they always have. The reason is the payoff they offer is better than the legal gambling venues. Again, it's a matter of overhead. The bookies are not trying to build schools or roads, so they don't have to earmark a percentage of the profits for such endeavors. To the extent that this is the situation, bookies, will always have a market that is loyal to them. The same situation could logically occur if drugs were legalized.

ASSERTION V: THERE ARE NO COMPELLING MEDICAL REASONS TO PRESCRIBE MARIJUANA OR HEROIN TO SICK PEOPLE.

It is often suggested that, even if currently controlled substances are not made available to the general public, some of them, particularly marijuana and heroin could be used to relieve suffering.

Participants in the Anti-Legalization Forum acknowledged that arguments urging the medical use of marijuana are often used as an entree into the legalization debate. Medical use arguments can garner public support because they seem harmless enough to the well-intended audience. The experts agreed that these issues are peripheral to the real issue.

Medical professionals best debate the medical pros and cons of prescribing marijuana and heroin to sick people. It should be kept in mind, however, that the American Medical Association, the American Glaucoma Society, the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the International Federation of Multiple Sclerosis Societies, and the American Cancer Society have rejected marijuana as medicine.

Not one American health association accepts marijuana as medicine. Statements issued by these organizations express concern over the harmful effects of the drugs and over the lack of solid research demonstrating that they might do more good than harm.

In January 1997, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) requested that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) conduct a review of the scientific evidence for assessing the potential health benefits and risks associated with marijuana and its constituent cannabinonoids. In response to this request Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base was released by IOM in March 1998. The following six recommendations were enumerated in the aforementioned document:

Recommendation #1 - Research should continue into the physiological effects of synthetic and plant-derived cannabinoids and the natural function of cannabinoids found in the body. Because different cannabinoids appear to have different effects, cannabinoid research should continue, but not be restricted to, effects attributable to THC alone.

Recommendation #2 Clinical trials of cannabinoid drugs for symptom management should be conducted with the goal of developing rapid-onset, reliable, and safe delivery systems.

Recommendation #3 Psychological effects of cannabinoids such as anxiety reduction and sedation, which can influence medical benefits, should be evaluated in clinical trails.

Recommendation # 4 Studies to define the individual health risks of smoking marijuana should be conducted, particularly among populations in which marijuana use is prevalent.

Recommendation #5 Clinical trials of marijuana use for medical purposes should be conducted under the following limited circumstances: trials should involve only short-term marijuana use (less than six months); should be conducted in patients with conditions for which there is reasonable expectation of efficacy; should be approved by institutional review boards; and should collect data about efficacy.

Recommendation #6 Short-term use of smoked marijuana (less than six months) for patients with debilitating symptoms (such as intractable pain or vomiting) must meet the following conditions;

failure of all approved medications to provide relief has been documented; the symptoms can reasonably be expected to be relieved by rapid-onset cannabinoid drugs; such treatment is administered under medical supervision in a manner that allows for assessment of treatment effectiveness; and involve an oversight strategy comparable to an institutional review board process that could provide guidance within 24 hours of a submission by a physician to provide marijuana to a patient for a specified use. The American Medical Association policy statement on marijuana says, in part, "The AMA believes that cannabis (marijuana) is a dangerous drug and as such is a public health concern." This is not a new position for the AMA; it was adopted in 1969 and reaffirmed in 1994.

The following facts, which confirm the observations of the forum participants, may be used in debates:

Under the federal statute known as the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), (please refer to page 24) regulated drugs are divided into categories known as schedules. In Schedule I, for instance, are drugs with a high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. At the other end of the spectrum is Schedule V, which is for drugs that have a low potential for abuse and have a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. The Act provides a mechanism for substances to be controlled (added to a schedule), decontrolled (removed from control), or rescheduled (transferred from one schedule to another). Heroin and marijuana are in Schedule I; cocaine, which is sometimes used as a local anesthetic, is in Schedule II. Much of the debate about medical uses for currently illegal drugs concerns substituting heroin for morphine, supplying marijuana to AIDS and glaucoma patients, or using it to treat side effects of chemotherapy.

A petition to put marijuana in a less restrictive schedule of the CSA was rejected by then DEA Administrator John C. Lawn, after public hearings, on December 29, 1989. The United States Court of Appeals ordered further proceedings, however, to clear up what it felt were some ambiguities in the record. Administrator Robert C. Bonner, who succeeded Lawn, complied and issued a new ruling on March 26, 1992. "By any modern scientific standard, marijuana is no medicine," Bonner said. The three-judge appeals court upheld the ruling unanimously on February 18, 1994. "Our review of the record convinces us that the Administrator's findings are supported by substantial evidence," the court said, noting the "testimony of numerous experts that marijuana's medicinal value has never been proven in sound scientific studies."

ASSERTION VI: LEGALIZATION AND DECRIMINALIZATION OF DRUGS HAVE BEEN A DISMAL FAILURE IN OTHER NATIONS. The experiences of a number of foreign countries including Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Switzerland are often cited to demonstrate that other nations have successfully controlled drug use by providing areas where drug takers can obtain and use drugs.

Legalization proponents cannot find encouragement in the fact that when drugs were once legal, cheap, and available in the United States, the impact on society was such that laws were enacted to make drugs illegal. They ignore our own history and point to Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Switzerland as free and open societies where drug use is allowed with no adverse effects. It is important to shed light on the foreign experience with increased drug access and liberalized use policies, and explain that this experience has been negative.

England tried prescribing heroin but eventually relented. Until the mid-1960s, British physicians were allowed to prescribe heroin to certain classes of addicts. After this experiment, according to James Q. Wilson in his 1990 article "Against the Legalization of Drugs," "a youthful drug culture emerged with a demand for drugs far different from that of the older addicts."

The British system did not work. Addiction levels rose, especially among teenagers, and many addicts chose to boycott the program and continued to get their heroin from illicit drug distributors.

In 1983, English clinics began dispensing methadone instead of heroin, consequently even more addicts departed in search of heroin. According to the late John Kaplan of Stanford University, the number of addicts increased fivefold. James Q. Wilson states that the British Government's experiment with controlled heroin distribution resulted in, at a minimum, a 30-fold increase in the number of addicts in ten years.

The Netherlands, despite its controlled program, is showing signs of failure as well. Under the so-called "expediency principle," Dutch prosecutors have wide discretion in prosecuting, or ignoring, persons in possession of small quantities of drugs for personal use. In practice, marijuana and hashish, for instance, are openly sold and consumed in coffeehouses.

The Amsterdam Municipal Health Service showed a rise in hard-core addicts in 1992, attributable to a significant rise in the local heroin supply which led to a price drop of as much as 75 percent.

Switzerland has become a magnet for drug users the world over. Small European nations have discovered firsthand that a modicum of tolerance relative to drugs is capable of attracting innumerable unwelcome visitors. In 1987, Zurich permitted drug use and sales in a part of the city called the Platzspitz, dubbed "Needle Park." Five years later the experiment was curtailed after an influx of addicts, and increased violence and drug-related deaths. In 1992, Zurich Municipal spokesman Andres Ohler told the New York Times that the number of regular drug users at the park had swelled from a few hundred in 1987 to 20,000 by 1992. After the Platzspitz closed, the price of heroin reportedly doubled.

Zurich authorities moved many addicts to a new site, a nearby abandoned railway station, in close proximity of Needle Park. Here, addicts receive clean needles and are allowed to inject heroin and consume other drugs. Writing in Drug Abuse Update in 1994, Sue Rusche, executive director of National Families in Action, gave this description of what a passerby can see if they look down from the Kornhaus Bridge:

"Most people think shots are bloodless events. A nurse inserts a needle, injects a medicine and you're on your way. But here, bright red blood streams down arms, necks, legs, feet, and groins as addicts inject themselves. Festering red and purple sores filled with pus, old blood and filthy scabs stretch from wrist to elbow, ankle to knee."

The abandoned railway station was closed as an addict congregating area in February 1995, by government authorities, as the situation became increasingly intolerable.

The following facts, which confirm the observations of the forum participants, may be used in debates:

In April 1994, a number of European cities signed a resolution titled "European Cities Against Drugs," commonly known as the Stockholm resolution. It states: "The demands to legalize illicit drugs should be seen against the background of current problems, which have led to a feeling of helplessness. For many, the only way to cope is to try to administer the current situation. But the answer does not lie in making harmful drugs more accessible, cheaper, and socially acceptable. Attempts to do this have not proved successful. We believe that legalizing drugs will, in the long term, increase our problems. By making them legal, society will signal that it has resigned to the acceptance of drug abuse. The signatories to this resolution therefore want to make their position clear by rejecting the proposals to legalize illicit drugs." Pointing to the appropriate international treaties that require nations to "protect children from the illicit use of narcotic drugs," the signatories state that they "reject all demands for legalizing illicit drugs... We request that our Governments respect and with determination apply those conventions and agreements regarding drugs which they have signed."

The cities signing this resolution include: Berlin, Stockholm, Budapest, Dublin, Gdansk (Poland), Gothenburg (Sweden), Helsinki, Paris, Lugano (Switzerland), Madrid, Malmo (Sweden), Moscow, Oslo, Prague, London, Reykjavik (Iceland), Riga (Latvia), St. Petersburg (Russia), Tallinn (Estonia), Valletta (Malta) and Warsaw.

A study by the Rotterdam Municipal Council shows that the number of young cocaine users there has risen substantially. About 3.3 percent of all Rotterdam residents 15 to 19 years of age use cocaine, according to the study. The Dutch Criminal Intelligence Service reported 104 gun-related deaths in the Netherlands in 1992, compared to 73 in 1991. Almost all involved drug disputes. Robberies also increased in each of the four years since 1988.

The Netherlands, smaller than West Virginia, has more than 50 clinics supplying methadone to heroin addicts, and drug violators make up a large percentage of prisoners in the Dutch prison system.

ASSERTION VII: ALCOHOL HAS CAUSED SIGNIFICANT HEALTH, SOCIAL, AND CRIME PROBLEMS IN THIS COUNTRY, AND LEGALIZED DRUGS WOULD ONLY MAKE THE SITUATION WORSE.

Many legalization advocates are fond of comparing the use of alcohol with the use of drugs, yet draw faulty conclusions from the comparison. People often consume small amounts of wine or beer as a beverage and do not necessarily drink to the point of mental impairment. This is not true of drug use, where the whole point of use is intoxication. A more accurate analogy would be to compare drug use to drunkenness. Yet even that analogy is weak, because drugs are far more addictive than alcohol. Dr. Mitchell Rosenthal points out, for example, that only 10 percent of drinkers become alcoholics, while up to 75 percent of regular illicit drug users become addicted.

Proponents of legalization note correctly that alcohol kills many more Americans than do illegal drugs and currently exact social and financial costs that are higher as well. Advocates point out that many people do not use alcohol, and argue that many Americans may also choose to forego drug use. Additionally, advocates contend that like treatment programs available for alcoholics, treatment programs for other drug addicts should be more widely available.

The forum participants pointed to health care systems and social service mechanisms that are already overburdened and consequently unable to address all the problems associated with alcohol use. The legalization of drugs would compound these problems, the participants said, adding immeasurably to the burdens on the criminal, health, and social service systems.

Alcohol use in this country has taken a tremendous physical toll on Americans, not to mention the social problems that have resulted from its use. Legalization proponents would have us multiply our problems by greatly adding to the class of drug-addicted Americans. Again, how much are we willing to tolerate?

Look at the problems that alcohol abuse has wrought. In the 1920s those advocating the repeal of Prohibition argued that crime and other social ills would be alleviated if alcohol were legal. Has that happened? We now have approximately 11 million alcoholics or problem drinkers in this country whose behavior has contributed to decreased productivity in the workplace, fetal defects, traffic fatalities, domestic violence, and other crime. If drugs were made legal, the numbers and the problems would further proliferate. The simple fact is that if drugs are made legal, more people will use drugs. There will be higher health and social costs; there will be more crime.

The following facts, which confirm the observations of the forum participants, may be used in debates:

In a May, 1993 report titled "Survey of State Prison Inmates," the Bureau of Justice Statistics states that 32 percent of inmates committed their offense under the influence of alcohol. Slightly more than two-fifths of inmates convicted of homicide or assault committed their current offense under the influence of alcohol, or of alcohol and drugs.

According to the 1998 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 113 million Americans, 52 percent of the population, age 12 and older reported current use of alcohol, meaning they used alcohol at least once during the 30 days prior to being interviewed. Approximately 33 million of this group reported engaging in binge drinking, meaning they consumed five or more drinks on one occasion during that 30-day period. Furthermore, 12 million respondents reported being heavy drinkers, meaning they consumed five or more drinks on one occasion five or more days during the past 30 days.

Furthermore, the 1998 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse reported that 10.5 million current drinkers were age 12-20. Of this group, 5.1 million engaged in binge drinking, including 2.3 million who would also be classified as heavy drinkers. This despite the fact that the consumption of alcoholic beverages is illegal for those under 21 years of age.

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholisms study entitled: "The Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the United States, 1992," (the year for which the most recent statistics are available) drug and alcohol abuse costs the United States over $246 billion in 1992.

According to the same study, productivity losses totaled $69.4 billion for drug abuse, including premature death and impaired productivity.

According to the National Highway and Trafficking Safety Administration, 15,935 people were killed in alcohol-related traffic incidents in 1998.

Michigan's Director of the Office of Drug Control Policy, Robert Peterson, states that "It is estimated that alcohol abuse costs the nation $100 billion per year and over 300 lives per day, an amount that the $18 billion in state and federal excise tax revenue does not begin to cover."

ASSERTION VIII: DRUG CONTROL SPENDING IS A MINOR PORTION OF THE U.S. BUDGET AND COMPARED TO THE COSTS OF DRUG ABUSE, DRUG CONTROL SPENDING IS MINUSCULE.

Legalization advocates claim that this nation has spent billions of dollars to control drug production, trafficking, and use with few, if any, positive results. They contend that the money spent on drug control should be shifted to other, more productive endeavors.

The truth is, we have made great progress in reducing drug use during the past 15 years. If the relatively modest outlays of Federal dollars had not been made, drug abuse and attendant social costs would have been far greater. The good news is that drug use has continued to decline.

The claim that money allegedly saved from giving up on the drug problem could be better spent on education and social problems is readily disputed. When compared to the amount of funding that is spent on other national priorities, drug control spending is minimal (see chart, page 30). There has been progress in reducing drug use, and the money spent has been effective and worthwhile.

On the surface, legalization proponents present an appealing, simple argument that by legalizing drugs we can move vast sums of money from drug law enforcement into solving society's ills. They leave unanswered questions about the cost of collecting revenues associated with drug sales, or the cost of regulating drugs. They ignore questions concerning the purity, potency, and quality of legal drugs, the costs of insuring a safe product, and costs associated with increased liability litigation.

Ask proponents of legalization for specifics. Would the raw material for these drugs be purchased from traditional sources, or would the United States produce its own marijuana, coca, and opium? Would the government pay farmers subsidies to produce or not produce these crops? Although all of these questions could be resolved, none comes without a price tag.

Proponents also conveniently fail to mention that unless drugs are made available to children, law enforcement will still be needed to deal with the sale of drugs to minors. But more importantly, in their simplistic arguments, they omit mention of the atrocious social costs that would be incurred with a larger class of drug users. Legalization would also result in lost workforce productivity and a resultant increase in the cost of goods.

Furthermore, it is reasonable to believe that the health and societal costs of drug legalization would also increase. Drug treatment costs, hospitalization for long-term drug-related diseases, and treatment of family violence would place additional demands on our already overburden health-care system.

Additionally, there is no guarantee, according to the forum participants, that criminal justice costs would decline if drugs were legalized. It is possible that law enforcement would be additionally burdened with addressing violations of traffic and family violence laws if more people had access to drugs. Law enforcement is already challenged by significant alcohol-related crimes. More users may result in the commission of additional crimes, causing incarceration costs to increase as well.

The following facts, which confirm the observations of the forum participants, may be used in debates:

In Fiscal Year 1999, the Federal Government spent in excess of $17 billion on drug control, including enforcement, prevention, education, and treatment. In comparison, drug and alcohol abuse costs the United States in excess of $246 billion each year.

The federal government spends billions of dollars each year on other national priorities. In Fiscal Year 1999, the federal government spent:

$275.1 billion for defense; $387 billion for Social Security; $62.7 billion for agriculture; $14.2 billion for welfare; $15.3 billion for foreign assistance.

This is not to suggest that the aforementioned spending is unwarranted, but rather to accurately address the misconception of disproportionate spending for drug control.

ASSERTION IX: DRUG PROHIBITION IS WORKING. Legalization advocates claim that drug prohibition is akin to alcohol prohibition earlier this century. Their main premise is that it is impossible to prohibit people from using substances that they want to use.

Forum participants suggested that legalization opponents should point to the successes of Prohibition and continually stress the positive progress that has been made between 1979 and 1998 in reducing levels of drug abuse.

When the Volstead Act was repealed, arrests for alcohol traffickers disappeared, but arrests in alcohol-related incidents rose, indicating that the prohibition against alcohol had kept people from using it. The same will happen if drugs are legalized. Once the Government sanctions drug use, it is reasonable to suggest that more people will use drugs.

It is also important to remember that after Prohibition was repealed, organized crime branched out into other areas, and there is every expectation that current drug organizations would also continue and diversify.

The following facts, which confirm the observations of the forum participants, may be used in debates:

Dr. Mark Moore, in a 1992 article titled "Actually, Prohibition Was a Success," points out that alcohol consumption declined during the Prohibition years by as much as 30-50 percent. Mental hospital admissions from alcohol-induced psychosis declined 50 percent.

Robert Peterson, Director of the Michigan Office of Drug Control Policy, states that "Since the repeal of Prohibition, alcohol consumption has tripled."

ASSERTION X: LEGALIZATION WOULD HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES.

Some proponents of legalization claim that current strict drug control policies have a disproportionately adverse effect on poor communities.

The drug laws of the United States, and efforts to stop drug trafficking and abuse, are designed to protect all people from the harm and degradation that illegal drugs cause. If one economic group or another is disproportionately affected by the implementation of current laws, that problem should be dealt with in its proper context, not by legalizing drugs.

The participants at the forum, several of them city police chiefs, disagreed with the notion that legalization would improve the lot of the poor. Legalization proponents argue that fewer people would be arrested for drug trafficking crime, and the violence associated with the protection of areas of distribution would be reduced if drugs were legalized. That argument assumes that drug-related violence is limited to rival drug gangs disputing areas of distribution, when in fact, most drug violence is committed by people under the influence of drugs.

One can further suggest that the incidence of dysfunctional families, the rate of unemployment, family violence, and ruined lives would increase in low-income communities, just as it would in every other community. All communities may witness increased aberrant behavior because of increased drug use. Specifically, communities may experience increased occurrences of child abuse & neglect, family disintegration, fetal damage caused by mothers' drug use, social welfare costs, loss of workforce productivity, increased auto accidents attributable to drug impaired drivers, increased industrial accidents caused by impaired workers, increased absenteeism, and increases in emergency room visits and overdose deaths. In short, all Americans may be subjected to a moral decline of society.

The following facts, which confirm the observations of the forum participants, may be used in debates:

In his 1994 article in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Herbert Kleber addresses the drug situation: "Our current drug situation follows a pattern of earlier drug epidemics. As the use of drugs drops from epidemic to endemic levels, disadvantaged groups are more likely than others to continue using drugs because of their greater availability and fewer alternative opportunities. That is why minority communities want not only treatment facilities but also fair laws, justly applied to reduce the horrendous toll of drug-related crime in their neighborhoods. The illegal, open air drug bazaars that flourish in southeastern Washington DC and the South Bronx would not be tolerated in Georgetown or Scarsdale."

Legalization can be a very complicated subject to discuss and it would be almost impossible for any individual to be completely prepared, current and credible on all the aspects of the legalization issue. Also, it's one thing to make your presentation effectively when you're the only speaker of the evening, quite another when equal time goes to someone speaking in favor of legalization, especially if that person is adept at public debate.

No matter what the setting, we recommend couching your message in affirmative terms because legalization is about drugs and drugs are as controversial a topic as any facing the American people. Many times, even those listeners who have no sympathy for the idea of legalization might say, for instance, "Can't we do better somehow than we're doing now about our drug problems?" The answer is clearly yes. This question, by the way, provides an opportunity for you to remind the audience that they must help deal with the problem. It is your chance to ask them: Do you know about the demand reduction and prevention solutions at work in your community, in your neighborhood, in the schools, in job training and workplace settings, in jails and in treatment and prevention centers? What do you do now, and what are you willing to do? How much are you prepared to spend to make it better?

The discussion can and usually will touch on several areas of scholarship: medical science, the behavioral and social sciences, law and criminal justice, economics, international matters, and historical and cross-cultural analysis. While it is not necessary to be a specialist in all the disciplines, it is wise to be knowledgeable and comfortable with some essential questions and answers.

Arguments in favor of legalization, as mentioned earlier, often draw overly broad conclusions from limited data or research, rely on hypothetical arguments and lean heavily on research that is outdated, discredited, or "uncredited," meaning that it hasn't been subjected to rigorous review by the researcher's colleagues prior to publication.

Not all discussions of legalization issues take place in formal or structured settings. Frequently, questions are raised in the course of presentations on other subjects, often in the context of discussions such as "Can we really stop the flow of drugs in the United States?" The answers you provide to these inquiries may be even more important and persuasive than your views offered in a debate setting because they are specific and direct, and may occur in one-on-one situations.

SOME DO'S AND DON'TS Do insist that proponents define what they mean by legalization: what drugs will be legalized, age limits, who regulates, who distributes, etc.

Don't assume the defensive position. Always remember the burden of proof is on the proponents of legalization. They are the ones suggesting that access to drugs be drastically increased.

Don't get bogged down in side issues, such as the needle exchange program, the medical use of marijuana, and the emerging issue of cultivation of hemp.

Do remind audiences that during the early part of the 20th Century, the United States struggled with the consequences of legalized drugs and concluded that the costs to society were far too great. The historical record is a valuable lesson to those contemplating legalization.

Do insist that the debate be defined to allow questions to be asked of advocates.

When invitations to participate in discussions about the legalization of drugs or to make formal presentations are received, responses will need to be consistent and clear. One approach is to accept such invitations only as part of an interdisciplinary team, perhaps one law enforcement person, one medical-scientific person, and one grassroots prevention person. But the host group may specify that it wants only one spokesman for the anti-legalization viewpoint and that there will be a legalization proponent speaking for the other side of the question. You may be asked to discuss the drug issue with no specific reference to the legalization issue. Be prepared anyway. Whether the format is one-on-one, or team versus team, before you say yes, you should insist on answers to some questions about ground rules. The answers to these questions should be requested and received in writing.

What is the format for the discussion and how long will it last? Who will be the pro-legalization speaker, if there is to be one? What is this person's background? Has she or he published anything on the drug legalization question? Will speakers be permitted to interrupt one another? Will there be a moderator? Who? Is the moderator impartial? Will there be questions from the audience? Is a specific legalization proposal being forwarded and, if so, what is it? If there is no specific proposal being presented, what is the general purpose of the discussion? Who will be in the audience? Will the speaker be permitted to invite others to attend? The answers to these questions will influence your decision to accept or decline the invitation. If these questions cannot be answered or if the host is not willing to commit the answers to paper, the invitation should either be declined or all parties should be well aware that they are entering the unknown.

Bear in mind that even a sponsoring group that is neutral may have ulterior motives. They may look on a legalization debate as entertainment, the more controversial the better. If that is so, and the proposed discussion is merely a device to get the organization unwarranted publicity, you would probably be wise to reject the invitation. Your experience should be sufficient to enable you to decide whether the hosts are serious. If they are, they won't object to your list of questions, because the questions show that you are serious too.

There is a language surrounding the legalization debate that is not difficult to learn. Here is some of the terminology frequently used by those who support or oppose legalization.

Legalization - Simply put this means making legal what is currently illegal. Used in the context of drug policy, it is a broad term that can mean different things to different people. To some, it means making all illegal drugs legal for anyone to use. To others, it means making certain illegal drugs legal for certain people to use. There is no specific definition of legalization because the parameters of legalization differ among supporters. The term must be further defined by asking: Who will be able to use? Which drugs? At what potency? Where and when? With what regulations? Regulated by whom or by which institutions? Enforced by whom or by which institutions?

Decriminalization - This term is used to describe the removal of, or reduction in, criminal penalties for particular acts. Used in the context of drug policy, it is a broad term that often encompasses a range of measures such as removal of criminal sanctions for simple possession of drugs or lowering of penalties for possession of small amounts of illegal drugs.

Scheduled Drugs - This term refers to the tiered system at the state and federal levels of regulating psychoactive drugs and access to them. The schedules draw distinctions among drugs with high abuse potential, such as marijuana and heroin, for which the medical and scientific communities have concluded that there are no currently accepted medical or therapeutic uses, and other drugs with abuse potential but accepted medical or therapeutic uses. The drug schedule is listed on page 24.

Harm Reduction - This term is often used to describe specific programs (e.g., needle exchange programs, methadone maintenance clinics, etc.) that attempt to diminish the potential harmful consequences associated with a particular behavior. The term "harm minimization" is also frequently used.

Bugliosi, Vincent. "Drugs in America: the Case for Victory." Knightsbridge, 1991.

Gorman, Thomas J. "The Myths of Legalization." California Narcotic Officers' Association in cooperation with the California Attorney General's Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, 1994.

Krauss, Melvyn and Lazear, Edward P., editors. "Searching for Alternatives: Drug Control Policy in the United States." Hoover Institution Press, 1991.

Inciardi, James A., editor. "The Drug Legalization Debate." Sage Publications, 1991.

Szasz, Thomas Stephen. "Our Right to Drugs: the Case for a Free Market." Praeger, 1992.

Zimring, Franklin E. "The Search For Rational Drug Control." Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Auletta, Ken. "Six Doses of Reality Are Injected in the Argument for Legal Drugs." New York Daily News, December 17, 1989.

Bennett, Sandra. "Therapeutic Marijuana: Fact or Fiction." Drug Watch, July 1992.

Bennett, William. "Mopping up after the Legalizers: What the 'Intellectual' Chorus Fails To Tell You." Washington Times, December 15, 1989.

Bent, Daniel. "An Eye Opener for Judges on the Health Effects of Marijuana." Drug Watch, March 1992.

Buckley, William F., Jr. "The Weed of Crime Bears Bitter Fruit." New York Daily News, June 10, 1993.

Cohen, Roger. "Amid Growing Crime, Zurich Closes a Park It Reserved for Drug Addicts." New York Times, February 11, 1992.

Collins, Christopher and Collins, Susan. "What Savings?" Baltimore Sun, March 20, 1990.

Corcoran, David. "Legalizing Drugs: Failures Spur Debate." New York Times, November 27, 1989.

DuPont, Robert L. and Goldfarb, Ronald L. "Drug Legalization: Asking for Trouble." Washington Post, January 26, 1990.

Kerr, Peter. "The Unspeakable Is Debated: Should Drugs Be Legalized?" New York Times, May 15, 1988.

Kilpatrick, James J. "Drug War: Good News, Bad News." The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, September 13, 1990.

Krauthammer, Charles. "Legalize? No. Deglamorize." Washington Post, May 20, 1988.

Labaton, Stephen. "Reno Questions Drug Policy's Stress on Smuggling." New York Times, May 8, 1993.

LaFranchi, Howard. "Heavy Legal Drug Use in Spain Prompts Calls for Tougher Laws." Christian Science Monitor, November 7, 1991.

Lapey, Janet D. "Marijuana as Medicine Refuted by NIH Scientists." Drug Watch, August 1992.

Mann, Peggy. "Reasons To Oppose Legalizing Illegal Drugs." Drug Awareness Information Newsletter, September 1988.

Meckler, Laura. "Seven in 10 Drug Users Are Full-Time Workers." Associated Press, September 8, 1999.

Moore, Mark H. "Actually, Prohibition Was a Success." New York Times, October 17, 1989.

Ostrow, Ronald J. "Study Finds Acceptance of Marijuana for Therapy." The Oregonian, May 1, 1991.

Peterson, Robert E. "Stop Legalization of Illegal Drugs." Drug Awareness Information Newsletter, July 1988.

Radonich, Timothy. "Controlling Drugs through Legalization." Northwest Libertarian (newsletter), September 1990.

Regional Drug Initiative of Portland, Oregon. "Position Paper in Opposition to the Legalization of Drugs," September 1990.

Sander, Tom. " 'Weedotherapy' Works: Government Should Legalize Marijuana as Medicine." Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, March 6, 1993.

Schmoke, Kurt. "Decriminalizing Drugs: It Just Might Work-And Nothing Else Does." Washington Post, May 15,1988.

Schuchard, Marsha Keith. "Marijuana: An Environmental Pollutant." Parents' Resource Institute for Drugs (PRIDE).

Schuckit, Marc A. "Should We Legalize Cocaine?" Drug Abuse and Alcoholism Newsletter, June 1990.

Skolnick, Jerome H. "Drugs: More or Fewer Controls?" Los Angeles Times, June 22, 1988.

Thomas, Kathy. "On Legalizing Marijuana: Let the FDA Do Its Job!" Drug Awareness Information Newsletter, September 1988.

U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for United States Attorneys. "Prisoner Survey Provides Look at Violent Crime." Violent Crime NET, May 1993.

Zucchino, David. "A Push to Make Drugs Legal." Philadelphia Inquirer, July 5, 1992.

"Business Tax Incentives Can Help Win Drug War," Washington Times, December 15, 1989.

"Needle Exchange Is an Approval of Drug Use in the Most Destructive Way." Drug Watch, March 1992.

"Poll Finds 90% Favor Keeping Drugs Illicit." New York Times, September 15, 1988.

"Student Exercise for Marijuana Activist Group Given National Media Attention To Influence Court Case." Drug Prevention Newsletter, June 1991.

Bennett, Georgette. "Legalization: Would It Work?" National Law Journal, September 26, 1988.

Courtwright, David T. "Should We Legalize Drugs? History Answers. No." (See also entry for Nadelmann, Ethan A.) American Heritage, February/March 1993.

Current, William F. "Arguments Against Legalization of Illicit Drugs," Employee Assistance Quarterly, Vol. 6, 1990.

Dennis, Richard J. "The Economics of Legalizing Drugs." The Atlantic, November 1990.

France, Steve. "Should We Fight Or Switch?" American Bar Association Journal, February 1990.

Kleiman, Mark A.R. "Should Some Illegal Drugs Be Legalized? Legalization: A Simplistic Solution to a Complex Problem." Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 1990.

Kleber, Herbert, M.D. "Our Current Approach to Drug Abuse-Progress, Problems, Proposals." New England Journal of Medicine, February 3, 1994, Vol. 330, No. 5.

Linn, Lawrence S. and Yager, Joel. "Physician Drug Legalization Fraught With Danger, Uncertainty." Narcotics Control Digest, June 22, 1988.

Lipman, Arthur G. "The Argument against Therapeutic Use of Heroin in Pain Management." American Journal of Hospital Pharmacists, May 1993.

Montagne, Michael. "The Argument for Therapeutic Use of Heroin in Pain Management." American Journal of Hospital Pharmacists, May 1993.

Nadelmann, Ethan A. "Should We Legalize Drugs? History Answers. Yes." (See also entry for Courtright, David T.) American Heritage, February/March 1993.

Sweezy, Martha. "Why Heroin Should Be Legalized." Smith College Studies in Social Work, Vol. 61, #2, 1991.

Teasley, David L. "Drug Legalization and the 'Lessons' of Prohibition." Contemporary Drug Problems, Spring 1992.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. "Fact Sheet: Drug Data Summary." Drugs & Crime Data, November 1992.

Weisheit, Ralph A. and Johnson, Katherine. "Exploring the Dimensions of Support for Decriminalizing Drugs." Journal of Drug Issues, Winter 1992.

Wilson, James Q. "Against the Legalization of Drugs." Commentary, February 1990.

"Physicians' Attitudes Toward the Legalization of Marijuana Use." Western Journal of Medicine, June 1989.

"Should Some Illegal Drugs Be Legalized: Legalization is the Answer." Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 1990.

Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration. "Marijuana Scheduling Petition, Denial of Petition, Remand. 21 CFR Part 1308 [Docket No. 86-22]" (Administrative Law hearing).

"National Drug Control Strategy: Reclaiming Our Communities from Drugs and Violence," The White House, February 1994.

"Panacea or Chaos? The Legalization of Drugs in America." Mitchell S. Rosenthal, M.D., presented in Distinguished Lecturer in Substance Abuse lecture series, North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, NY, January 15, 1993.

Russell, John S. and McNicoll, Andre. "The British Experience with Narcotic Dependency," Alcohol and Drug Commission, Ministry of Health, Province of British Columbia.

"Report of the International Control Board for 1992." International Narcotics Control Board of the United Nations.

"State and Local Spending on Drug Control Activities." Office of National Drug Control Policy, October 1993.

"Legalization: Panacea or Pandora's Box." Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Colombia University, September 1995.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 1998 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, August, 1999.

University of Michigan. National Survey Results on Drug Use from the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1998, December, 1998.

University of Michigan. National Survey Results on Drug Use from the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1997, December, 1997.

Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. 1999 CASA Back to School Teen Survey, August, 1999.

Partnership for a Drug Free America. 1998 Partnership Attitude Tracking Survey, April, 1999.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Worker Drug Use and Workplace Policies and Programs: Results from the 1994 & 1997 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, September, 1999.

Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. 1997 National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse Annual Report, 1997.

Institute of Medicine. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base, March, 1999.

Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization

by DEA