The arguments

Which arguments are being used by drug liberals and legalizing supporters?

As the arguments for a drug liberal development and leglizing usually are connected with the arguments for a "harm reduction" policy, all these arguments will be discussed and commented on. The arguments used by the different groups and debaters are many. It will therefore be impossible to quote and discuss them all. Here are the most common arguments in the West European debate:

"Harm reduction" - medical arguments

Not especially harmful, only by intensive use

Drugs are not especially harmful. This argument mainly concerns cannabis, but under certain circumstances it also goes for cocaine, amphetamine, ecstasy, methadon etc. There is scientific research that proves that drugs are not harmful. At least not when used moderately, just now and then. Today large groups are using drugs moderately, and are not harmed by it.

Comment:

It is true that a good deal of cannabis users function in their jobs and families, and they do not seem to have gotten any health problems, or otherwise have been affected by their use. Similarly, there are reports on persons using other types of drugs without seeming to be harmed in any way.

The fact that some are able to live with a drug abuse without serious problems, is of no use to the ones who get problems. Both research and experience from contact with user environments shows only too clearly that an extended use of drugs (including cannabis) leads to enormous problems for a lot of people. Usually the ones who have the greatest problems from the beginning also are the ones who are hardest hit by drug problems. Therefore it is clearly a moral question if those who "are able to make do without any problems" can renounce their responsibility for the result of the total drug abuse.

As with alcohol abuse, the pattern of drug use will vary from person to person. We cannot prevent some from getting addicted, and then turn into "intensive use". Because of this, any reasoning based on an overall moderate use, is of only theoretical interest.

The research done on harm caused by alcohol and tobacco, is a good illustration on how difficult it is to establish scientifically which connection of causes, harm and risk is involved in the use of the different substances. This is even more difficult with drugs, partly because the substances are illegal, and partly because they are relatively new phenomenons in our culture. Still, there is enough research available to state that the distribution of cannabis, ecstasy or other narcotics is followed by severe harm, both for the individuals and for the society. There is no room for a more thorough discussion of that literature here. We encourage the readers of this to study other literature on the harm caused by drug use.

Not especially habit forming, depends on special characteristics

This is also an argument very commonly used in connection with cannabis. Sometimes also used in connection with LSD, ecstasy, cocaine, crack and amphetamine. A few debaters also argue that the opiats are not especially habit forming either, people can use heroin or morphine from time to time, witout becoming addicts. "See how many people in Great Britain who are using cannabis, two and a half million (...ca three million in Germany). You cannot say that all these are addicts?" "When some people become cannabis addicts, it is not because of the cannabis. It is a result of special characteristics of the individual, which makes it vulnerable to addiction."

Comments:

There is a physical addiction, and a mental addiction. Certain types of drugs give a strong physical dependency, like the opiates. Here the dependency concists of trying to avoid the physical torment that comes when sobering up. Other kinds of drugs give a strong mental dependency, like amphetamine and cocaine. The mental dependency consists of a craving for the effects of the drug. This craving can get so strong that it takes over your whole life, bending it towards one primary goal: The satisfaction of the craving.

Some drugs are strongly connected with certain social situations, and the drug user always longs for the effect of the drug when he is in one of these situations. To many cannabis smokers this longing is very tangible. If he does not get cannabis in such situation he will feel ill. It is not probable that so many people would be using cannabis if they did not crave for the effect of the drug. This craving is the same as dependency.

Uncertain concentrations, the prohibition kills

When the abusers have to buy the drugs on the street, they can never be sure of the concentration of the drug. This may cause accidental death by overdose. If the users could be sure of the concentration nobody would have to die by accidental overdose. If drugs were legalized, the users could always trust the purity of the drugs they buy.

If there were no prohibition, at least there did not have to be any accidental deaths by overdose. In other words: The prohibition kills. By legalizing drugs one will be able to guarantee the concentration of the drugs. This way one can minimize the number of deaths by overdose - "harm reduction".

Comment:

The problematics of overdose is complex, and cannot be solved through a guarantee of the concentration of the drugs. Some overdoses are being consciously injected by the user himself or by others. Many overdoses happens after an abstaining periode, when the user forgets to take into consideration that his tolerance for the drug has been reduced since the last abuse periode.

Some overdoses are caused by mixing two drugs which boost the effect of each other. A combination of heroin and tranquilizers can have a lethal effect at doses, which taken separately would not be dangerous. The development of tolerance will lead to a variation of doses through an abuse career. As these compounds can kill, there is always risk involved when using them. As the users often are intoxicated by alcohol or other drugs, or are suffering from abstinence symptoms when taking a fix, they are apt to commit miscalculations, even if the concentration of the drug should be constant.

It is also important to notice that experienced abusers often are subject to overdoses, so these accidents are not neccesarily a result of lack of experience in judging the dose. Even abusers on methadon programmes are subject to overdose. A survey from the Health Department in Denmark (1992) shows that 23 % of those who died by overdose were on methadon programmes.

The prohibition causes harm - additives

The drugs that are being sold on the black market are very often mixed with other compounds, sometimes with detergents, some times with plaster powder or other powders that resembles heroin or cocaine powder. The abuser can never be sure of which additives.

That different compounds are mixed causes harm to the abuser. The prohibition leads in other words to unneccesary harm. If one legalize drugs, one can guarantee that the drugs are not being mixed with harmful additives. One can guarantee that all the drugs for sale is pure or only mixed with harmless compounds. This way one can prevent the harm caused by additives - "harm reduction".

Comment:

The drugs are rarely mixed with additives that are more harmful than the drugs themselves. This is therefore no big problem. One can hardly imagine a so totally free drug market that there will not be an illegal market also (compare alcohol). The risk for additives will therefore never be completely removed.

Syringes as bearers of infection - the prohibition is the cause of infections

Many drug users who are injecting the drugs are swapping syringes. The needles are often not sterilized before use, and so infection is spread. Needle addicts are therefore especially exposed to certain kinds of illnesses, like HIV/AIDS and hepatitis. The prohibition makes the users feel persecuted. Therefore they are always in a hurry, and does not always take time to cleanse the syringe. This way HIV/AIDS and hepatitis are being spread unneccesarily, because of the prohibition.

By distributing free syringes in great quantities the risk for infection can be reduced. If the syringes are available in almost unlimited quantities, and the users would have free access to an unused syringe, the risk for swapping will be minimized, and the spreading of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis will be reduced. Another example of "harm reduction".

Comment:

Free distribution of syringes is supposed to reduce spreading of HIV/AIDS infection, because the users always will have a clean syringe at hand.

Free distribution of syringes will at the same time make it easier to establish a needle addiction. This may vail the fact that all drug use, and especially drugs injected by syringe, always is dangerous and destructive. The distribution of syringes will therefore include a difficult moral dilemma: Shall we reduce the measures against the most dangerous form of drug abuse to reduce the danger of spreading HIV/AIDS infection? In cases where distribution of syringes is the only measure taken to help the drug addicts, this is to give in to the drugs in an immoral way.

Free distribution of drugs, without a demand to get back one syringe for each syringe being given out, also includes an unacceptable burden on the environment, whict will be littered by used syringes.

The prohibition causes uneccesary harm - hygiene and nutrition

For the drug users the daily hunt for money and drugs is full time work. They have to spend so much time on this that they neglect important things like hygiene and nutrition. This causes unneccesary harm.

If drugs were legalized, the prices would be lower. The drug users would not have to spend so much time getting the neccesary amount of money as they have to, as long as the drugs are prohibited. The situation would be easier, and they would have more time to take care of themselves. The prohibition leads to unneccesary harm. Legalizing will lead to "harm reduction".

Comment:

Neglection of hygiene is much more connected with the drug abuse itself, than with the hunt for drugs. The abusers neglect their hygiene and nutrition when being under influence of the drugs. They do not neglect themselves because they are persecuted and stressed.

The same kind of problems with hygiene and nutrition also appears among people with a high alcohol consumption. These extra problems therefore seems to be connected with the lethargy that follows a continous intoxication.

The prohibition leads to a more dangerous use

The high prices are caused by the prohibition and the organized crime involved with the drug traffic. They lead to a more dangerous use, compared to a situation with legalized and cheaper drugs. The drug abusers want to get full satisfaction from the drug they are using, so they change to "harder"drugs which they inject. To set drugs intravenous is more dangerous than both smoking it, drinking it or taking it in tablet form. In other words: The prohibition leads to a more dangerous use.

Comment:

Smoke heroin is more expensive than injection heroin, so the argument does not apply in that connection. Cocaine is the most expensive drug, and is usually sniffed through the nose. Injection of cocain is much more rare, so the argument does not apply here either. The use of cheaper drugs is almost equal to that of more expensive ones in, for instance, both Norway and Sweden. The connection between the degree of danger and high prices does therefore not seem to exist.

Crack is a result of the prohibition

Cocaine is a very expensive drug. Therefore crack was invented as a cheaper substitute for cocaine abusers. Crack is much more dangerous than cocaine. The prohibition is in other words the cause of the development of more dangerous drugs, and causes a more dangerous use.

Comment:

There is very little doubt about crack being invented anyway. Crack was experimented out by people who was looking for a new narcotic drug, on which they could make a good profit. Crack has the (for smugglers and dealers) positive characteristic that the users unusually soon develop a strong addiction, especially a mental addiction. The quicky addicted customer becomes a regular and good customer.

The risk to become addicted is greater for those who are just testing the drugs, as long as the prohibition is in effect

An example of this is PCP, "Angel dust", one of the most hazardious compounds. The drug has led to accidents and deaths, especially among young an inexperienced "testers", who have thought that they were buying a relatively harmless dance-drug. It is the prohibition that maims and kills. Legalizing wil lead to lesser risk for the ones who are just testing the drugs, and will lead to the disappearance of the most dangerous drugs.

Comment:

Those who buy drugs know of course that they are buying a dangerous product. The starting point of experimenting with drugs is a combination of seeking exitement and a naïve belief in that just they will be able to manage it without being harmed. People who are seeking adventure and exitement in experimenting with new and unknown compounds, will hardly be stopped by a regulated, legal market. The driving force behind the experimenting is namely the search for exitement and to cross new borders.

Legalizing drugs might therefore just as well move the limits for how far those who are seeking exitement have to go, to feel that what they do is new and illegal. The effect will then be the opposite, that more will be experimenting with unknown drugs. A person who is eager to try new drugs, will always be exposed to danger, as he will not know what effects and by-effects the drug will have. One risks taking strychnine in the belief that it is something else. One risks taking other compounds than intended. One risks taking a stronger dose than intended.

"Safe use"

In the "harm reduction" thinking is also included ideas about concentrating on giving information about how to use drugs in a safer way. The aim of this information is not to convince people that they should stop or reduce their drug consumption.

Much energy is concentrated on information on how dangerous it is to use unclean needles, how to clean them properly, and how to cleanse the needle before use. The information is solely of a practical nature. A common message about ecstasy might be: "When you are using ecstasy at rave parties, make sure you get enough fluids so you don't collapse because of dehydration". This is called "harm reduction". Another urgent advice commonly distributed, is to avoid using different drugs at the same time. If you use just one kind of drug at a time, you reduce the risk and the harm, "harm reduction" again.

Comment:

There does not exist a "safe use" of drugs. All use of drugs includes danger, and may cause serious harm. Advice on safety rules when using drugs is a kind of "temperance ideology" for drugs. This kind of information will give the user a signal that the borderline is not between use and not use, but between temperate use and abuse. Then one hides the fact that the individual risk for dependency, development of an abuse pattern and harm, is impossible to foresee, and that it does not neccesarily have any connection with the individual's intent to be careful.

The only real "harm reduction" information would be to encourage people not to use drugs, to reduce their consumption as much as possible, or to stop using them.

Chaotic use - stabilised use

When the users are forced to get their drugs on the street, they are exposed to the whims of the black market. The access to drugs may vary considerably. Depending on the access to drugs, the users' doses are going up and down. And the chances are that the day you don't get your usual drug, you just buy another kind.

Often the users start with some "uppers", and ends with some kind of "downers" to get back to normal. Or vice versa. Some times one starts with cocaine before going to a party where one knows there will be plenty of alcohol, in order to be able to consume more. There are any number of combinations. This is called a "chaotic" use of drugs. One of the main goals with the Legal Prescription Programmes is "stabilizing", that the person uses only one drug on a steady dose over a long periode.

Legalizing also means a more even access to drugs. This will make it easier to move from a "chaotic" to a "stable" drug use, which in turn will make it possible to lead a "normal" life. Moving from a "chaotic" to a "stable" drug use is part of "harm reduction".

Comment:

To accept that abusers are getting stable doses of drugs, means giving up. There is never to late to stop the abuse, or at least try to make the abusers who are in a chaotic situation to end their abuse. To give the abusers an alternative that includes an even access to drugs, will make it much harder for them to end their abuse.

"One can lead a normal life, even when taking drugs"

Drugs are not more harmful than one can easily live a normal life, even if you continue using them. In Western Europe there are many that claims they can do it. They claim that one can lead a normal life, even if one is using cannabis, amphetamine, cocaine, methadon or even heroin. Every year there are produced scientific reports confirming this.

The users own organizations are annually arranging big conferences in several West European countries, under the slogan "Live on drug" ("Leben mit Drogen"). As it is possible to live a life with drugs, it is claimed that it is best to concentrate on legal prescription of maintenance doses. As it is possible to live with drugs, it cannot be very harmful. Drugs should therefore be decriminalized and legalized.

Comment:

To be forced to take drugs every day to be able to feel like a normal human being, is neither normal nor natural. A compound like methadon leads to apathy and passivity for the user, even in small doses. Methadon does not give anybody a "normal" life, neither socially, nor emotionally. Some may be able to scrape through a job, and to a certain extent take part of the social activities of family and friends. But the blunting effect of the methadon will ensure that this never will be a "normal" life or coexistence. Instead there will be a sort of "chemicalizing" of what is "normal", and that can not in any way be called natural. Everyone who uses drugs over a prolonged periode will suffer harm and passivisation, in both medical, social and society connection.

Pregnant women - better for the foetus with a "stabilised" than a "chaotic" drug use

In almost all West European countries methadon is prescribed also to pregnant women. The motivation for prescribing is that it is better for the foetus that the woman can stabilise her drug use, than if she would have to buy drugs on the street and live in a "chaotic" situation. It is worse for the foetus to go up and down on doses, and to be exposed to several different drugs, than being exposed to even doses of for instance methadon.

It is claimed that methadon is harmless both for foetus, woman and baby: "Methadon is no more harmful than water". To support this claim there are several "scientific reports". In some countries there is a conscious effort among social workers to propose methadon to pregnant drug addicts. When the child is born, it has to be given methadon too, and slowly scale down to nil. They do not worry about the baby getting methadon through the mothers milk, because methadon is considered harmless.

Comment

Giving methadon to pregnant women is perhaps the worst result of giving in to the drug problem. To tempt the woman with an even, cheap and regular access to a drug, deprives her of the possibility to stop using drugs during the pregnancy. To give the mother methadon alså sets aside the interests of the child. A chemical substance like methadon is never completely harmless, and especially not in the case of such a very fragile and susceptible life as a foetus.

Comparisons to alcohol and tobacco

Drug liberals often claims that for example cannabis is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. And since alcohol and tobacco are legal trade products, drugs also should be. Sometimes they refer to comparisons of harm caused by alcohol and tobacco on one side, and those of for instance ecstasy, cocaine and amphetamine on the other. "Those who only occasionally smokes cannabis, are not harmed", is one of the claims, and one refers to the forementioned scientific reports to support the claims.

Comment:

It is true that alcohol and tobacco leads to great problems. To legalize or accept illegal drugs will in no way reduce these problems, but instead give us even more problems and make more harm. The alcohol problem alone is one drug problem too much. Everything indicates that if alcohol had been introduced for the first time today, it would have been prohibited. But it has a different story, it has been around for thousands of years, and almost every society is struggling to limit or reduce the harm it causes.

Those who are using narcotic drugs do not refrain from drinking alcohol. Norwegian surveys shows, quite on the contrary, that the drug users have a higher alcohol consumption than the average of the Norwegian people. A comparison between harm caused by alcohol and harm caused by other drugs is therefore irrelevant, the one is just adding up on the other.

Cannabis use causes different kinds of harm than alcohol use. Especially the apathy and the weakening of concentration that cannabis causes is very unfortunate. An extensive use will lead to passivity, which again is harmful both to the user and to the society. In addition will the use of both cannabis and other narcotic drugs cause physical and mental complcations, social harm and an increased risk of accidents during the intoxication. And all this comes on top of the social and health problems we already have, caused by alcohol and tobacco.

The positive effects

Some of the narcotic drugs are said to have positive effect in treating certain illnesses and symptoms. The opiats have tradisionally been used as painkillers in medicin. Cannabis is said to have good effect as a painkiller, and in treating certain forms of cancer and mental illnesses. The same is sometimes said about ecstasy, cocaine and LSD.

Comment:

Medical use of the different compounds is not classified as drug misuse. The problem seems to be an exessive use, rather than too little use of narcotic drugs precribed by phycicians. But the vastly dominating use of narcotic drugs is not medicinal. The medicinal use, and the real need for that, is only marginal. Medicinal reasons are very often used as a cover to get hold of drugs.

"Harm reduction" - social arguments

Some arguments for a drug liberal development and for "harm reduction" are of a social and a criminological kind.

It is a mistake to criminalize so many - the drugs are here to stay

In Great Britain one estimates to have about two and a half million cannabis smokers. Germany more than three million. It is a mistake to criminalize a phenomenon that involves so many people. It is unrealistic to dream of a drugfree society.

It is better to have a realistic attitude to facts. Cannabis is here to stay, we just have to accept the fact. Therefore we have to legalize drugs.

Comment:

The same reasoning can be used in connection with drunk driving, illicit distilling, child abuse, cheating on taxes etc. Most people see the neccessity to regulate different parts of society life by law. It is, however, neccesary to emphasize that the legislation and the sanctions according to this, only are measures, and almost always must be used in coordination with other measures. This is also the case in connection with the fight against drugs. We deem drugs unwanted, and logically we want to use both legislation and punishment, together with preventive measures, strengthening of opinion, stimulation of cultural life, a good employment policy, a good health and social policy, treatment, etc. Criminalizing is no easy shortcut to get rid of drug abuse, but one neccesary measure among others.

The consequense of so many people using drugs, though it is a criminal offence to use them, must be that we escalate our efforts in the different fields, with the aim to get rid of it. Not to legalize drugs we do not want.

Many laws and regulations are installed to avoid unneccesary risk of harm. Their objective is preventive. Examples of such laws are the demand for a license to be allowed to drive a car or a boat, or to fly a plane, traffic rules, demand of a license to buy a gun, or requirements for labeling and keeping of toxic compounds. These laws and the penal law authorize reactions when the laws are being violated. A society that sees it as a common responsibility to care for the victims, must also have the right to decide what is an acceptable risk.

Possession and use of drugs is a penal liability because the use of these compounds leads to great problems for many users, for their environment and for the society. The society does not want to accept this risk.

The legalizing supporters wish to let each person choose which risk he or she will accept, helped only by the common information on the risks involved. This kind of freedom of choice will, however, lead to the risk of harming others, costs for treatment and rehabilitation etc., both for the user and the society. The experience is that the consequenses for family, friends, colleagues etc., and for the society as a whole, are severe. One has therefore chosen to abolish all non medical use of drugs, just to prevent new victims getting caught.

The government should not interfere - if I use drugs, it is won't harm anybody but myself.

The government has no rigt to act as "Big Brother", and interfere with thigs that does not concern it. If I want to use drugs, I shall have to ask no one but myself. It will not harm anybody but myself.

Comment:

Drug abuse is certainly not affecting the user alone. Around every abuser there are always at least three-four persons who are just as severely affected by the abuse and all the problems that follows: Parents, family, colleagues and friends. In addition the society has to face the economical consequenses, and pay both for treatment, rehabilitation and other measures. When the society in advance knows that a phenomenon wil lead to problems and harm for many people, it is the same society's duty to try to prevent these problems. That is why the society has a right to interfere in the drug question.

The repressive policy harms people's rights

Police and the courts of law should protect the citizens through catching, jugding and punishing those who break the laws and commit offences against other people's life, freedom and properties. Drug offences does not come into this category. On the other hand, today's drug policy leads to frequently more such offences being committed by the government and their law enforcers.

Comment:

The drug problem involves an overwhelming number of offences to people's life, freedom and property. The drug legislation is there to protect both the abuser, his environment and the society at large.

"Victimless crime"

The expression "victimless crime" pops up from time to time in the West European debate. There are no victims in a case of possession of drugs or drug use. To commit a crime, one has to have a victim. If there is no victim, there cannot have been any crime.

Comment:

Most abusers are also selling drugs to others. In the course of production, sale and smuggling of drugs there are a vast number of victims, and the drug market is abundant with victims. Primarily the abusers themselves, but also their families, colleagues and friends. These circumstances are dictating society's reaction to the drug problem.

The rights of the users - we also must be allowed to live

Even the weakest groups in society has a right to exist. It is wrong of the society to persecute the weakest, the drop outs, the homeless, the drug users, the alcoholics etc. The society should acknowledge their right to live in peace.

Comment:

Of course they have a right to exist, and a right to treatment and support. But they do not have the right to break the laws of the society. Most of the drug users are selling drugs to others. This can be understood, but not accepted. The society is not only suffering harm and economic loss because of the individual abuser, but is also influenced by the other consequenses of drug abuse. The society cannot sit back and just watch people being harmed, and other problems arise from that. The society cannot function after the motto: "Take care of yourself - and give a damn about others". The society must care and react.

The right to intoxication

There should be a general right to intoxication, no matter what kind of substance that is being used. Those who are drinking alcohol have a right to get intoxicated by that. The same applies to benzodiasepines and similar substances. Why should the drug users, then, be denied their right to intoxication?

Comment:

Alcohol, being an accepted intoxicating substance, is already causing enormous human and social problems, and is a great problem for society. The right to alcohol intoxication is in itself a great burden to society. An additional right to intoxication by narcotic drugs, will cause new problems on top the problems we already have from alcohol. This in itself is reason enough to prohibit a right to drug intoxication. It is important that the society through legislation take what measures it can to prevent development of new problems.

Drug careers of five to ten years

Drug users have an average career of five to ten years, maybe up to fifteen years. After that they tire of it, and stop by themselves. Therefore it is important to reduce the harm as much as possible during their drug using periode.Decriminalizing and legalizing make it easier to take "harm reduction" measures during this periode.

Comment:

There is no reason that the drug abusers should take drugs for such a long periode. The measures taken by the society must be aimed at preventing people from getting into a career of drug abuse. For those who after all get caught in it, the important thing is to shorten the periode as much as possible.

This is the only real "harm reduction". Decrminalizing and legalizing only makes it easier for the abuser to prolong his drug abuse career. And the longer it lasts, the greater harm is caused. Decriminalizing and legalizing is therefore no effective measures to obtain "harm reduction".

The positive effects

Some drugs have splendid social effects. Cannabis for instance, make people far more social than what alcohol does. And drinking alcohol leads to more agressiveness. Ecstasy also make people warmer and more social. Such drugs should not be prohibited.

Comment:

Which social effects a certain drug has is as much a question about culture as about chemistry. To a great degree one "learns" what effect a certain drug shall have. One can easily see this in connection with alcohol, which has different effect in different cultures around the world. So it is with other drugs.

The usual effect of cannabis is that one becomes introvert. Usually it is harder than normal to communicate with a person who is intoxicated by canabis. This can hardly be called a positive, social effect. Contrary to cannabis, the intake of ecstasy makes a person "high" and exited. That also makes it harder to communicate, so this gives neither a positive social effect.

Restituting use - problematic use

There is a great difference in drugs being used to relax (restituting use) and so called "problematic use". Even heroin can be used for relaxation, but usually one talks about cannabis, amphetamine, LSD, cocaine, crack and ecstasy in connection with restituting use. Among the users of these drugs, only a few have so called "problematic use".

The great majority uses the drugs for relaxation and enjoyment, without getting any problems. It would be a mistake to forbid the drugs for reasons that only concerns a small minority of the users. The prohibition wil affect the ones who are using the drugs for restitutional purposes as much, or even more, than those who are having problems with their drug use. It would be better that the drugs were decriminalized and legalized. The problems of the minority in connection with these drugs must be solved by other measures than prohibition and restraint.

Comment:

Firstly it is not only a minority, but in fact a greater part of the abusers, who are harmed and get problems because of the drugs. And it is a correct decision by the society to take measures, when large groups are affected by a phenomenon.

We may feel sure that most people can manage very well, in spite of violating speed limits or other traffic rules. But since so many are hurt or killed in accidents caused by speeding or violation of other traffic rules, we have enforced a fairily strict regulation of the traffic. Within a living area only a small percentage may be affected by a phenomenon, before the community demands that somting must be done, and asks for severe rules or prohibition.

All legislature must try to protect and support the ones who are most easily affected by a phenomenon, not the "strong" ones , who goes through it more or less unaffected.

Legalizing will give positive economic effects

If one legalizes drugs, and make sure that the sale is well regulated, the society can count on a fair income through taxes. We are talking about substantial sums. In Germany three million cannabis users are paying more than a billion pounds for their cannabis. In addition one must consider what can be revenued from other drugs. Even if prices goes down, as an effect of legalizing, there will still be enormous sums to gain through taxes and other dues.

If legalized we also avoid all the expenses that now is put into police, law enforcement and jails for the users.

Comment:

Legalizing will lead to an increased consumption of drugs. This will cost society enormous sums as an effect of increased harm, both physically, socially and for the society as a whole. These society costs will far outweigh what one can get in through taxes etc. Alcohol is a good example of this. To society the most economical measure would be to reduce the use of drugs as much as possible.

The cannabis plant is economically useful

If cannabis was legalized one could make a lot of useful products from the plant, like textiles, paper, ropes, nutritious compounds and energy. The cannabis plant is raw material for all this.

Comment:

All these products can be made from equally good or better raw materials, which cannot be used for drug production.

Criminalizing counteracts and makes rehabilitation harder

Social workers and employees in the health care say that it is more difficult to get in touch with the users, as long as the prohibition exists. The users dare not tell about their abuse. They are afraid the police will get to know, and that they might be punished.

If drugs were legalized they didn't have to be so scared. It would be easier for the health care employees to make a survey of the problems, and then find out which measures will work best.

Comment:

Legalizing will lead to an increased consumption, and so cause more problems for the health care than today. If one once more take a look at the alcohol problem, there is very little that indicate rehabilitation becoming simpler just because the drug becomes a legal trade article. Rehabilitation of alcoholics are jugded the more difficult, just because alcohol is legal, and they therefore will meet it everywhere after treatment.

The conclusion must be that an increased acceptance and distribution of narcotic drugs will make it more difficult to treat and rehabilitate abusers.

The criminalizing is worst

The criminalizing causes more harm to the society and the individuals, than the harm caused by the drugs themselves.

To make the police persecute and jail the drug users, and maybe cause them harm for life, is worse than the harm caused by the drugs.

The criminalizing also forces the users into other crimes, and brings them in contact with criminal environments they otherwise would not have got into.

Comment:

Those who reason this way, are neglecting completely the fact that drug abuse causes harm and passivity, both for the individual and the society.

See also former comments on lifestyle and crime.

The prohibition is favourable to the criminal organizations

"Saying no to legalizing, is to say yes to increased power to organized crime", is one of the most common arguments from West European drug liberals. The prohibition makes neccesary that production, smuggling and selling must be performed by experienced people (=criminals). Organized crime is neccesary to avoid the police, the custom and other authorities. This means that the prohibition gives the criminal organizations monopoly on drug trafficcing. It then follows that their general political power and influence also increases as a result of the prohibition.

This both threatens and harms the democratic society structure. The international organized crime is financing a greater part of their activities through drug money. By legalizing the drugs, one will remove from the crime syndicates their most important financial source. Therefore drugs should be legalized.

Comment:

Criminal organizations are interested in drugs because the drug traffic is especially profitable. There is a theoretical possibility that their interest and hold on the drug bussiness can be weakened through an extensive legalizing.

There is, however, little reason to think that legalizing will weaken the power and position of the mafia to any great extent. Good evidence of this is the end of the alcohol prohibition in U. S. A. When the prohibition was lifted, the mafia simply moved their engagement to other fields, which gave good profit, power and influence.

The mafia already has many feet to stand on. There is no possibility to destroy their power and existence by removing one of their economic "legs". Such a policy would at the same time cause the society enormous harm through increased drug abuse. Even within a legal trade market for drugs, the mafia will most probably use their power to gain great profits from drug production and trade. The borderline between black and white economy is floating, and the mafia is primarily interested in power and profit. The mafia must be fought, but by other means.

Four arguments about the price mechanism:

-1. Criminalizing is the cause of the high prices

Because organized crime runs the black drug market, they also determine the prices. Instead of "free competition", which would press the prices down, the mafia has a monopoly, and takes out as high profit as possible.

This can only happen because of the prohibition.

-2. A legal market would press the prices on the black market, and that way reduce criminality etc

The competition on a legal market would mean an end to the high prices.

With lower prices the abusers would not have to steal so much to finace their drug use. In fact, they would not have to steal at all, and the criminal rate would be lowered.

If drugs were legalized on a white market, that would also mean the end of all crimes connected with the illegal trafficing with drugs today; production, distribution, smuggling, sale, possession and use. This constitute a great part of today's total criminal activity.

- 3. A legal market will reduce the influence of the mafia on the drug traffic

With a free market, no one will be able to uphold high prices. The competition will automatically press prices down. The mafia would not be able to earn more money on drugs than they would on any other legal trade.

In a free market organized crime would not have much to gain, and no one would want to trade with an organization that kills its customers if they disagree with them.

- 4. There will be less prostitution if drugs were legalized

Many female drug abusers finance their drugs through prostitution. If prices were lowered because of legalizing, they would not have to prostitute themselves, at least not to the present extent, to earn enough for their daily dose.

Legalizing would reduce prostitution.

Comment:

The argumentation has as its basis a totally free market with free competition. It is possible that such an extreme situation will lead to much lower prices, and that many more will engage themselves on production and selling. This would cause enormous harm through an increased consumption of drugs. Experience from the alcohol market shows that the price and the competition in a drug market will have a strong influence on the consumption and the harm level.

Such a model is luckily quite unrealistic.

Other, less extreme models of liberalizing or legalizing drug trade, will not give the same effect on prices and the producer's control of the market. A close example is the medical industry. This is a very profitable industry, where both producers and sellers demand high prices for their products.

We must assume that drugs to a legal, non-medical market, will be priced at the same level as medicines. The cost for the abusers will still be high, with the consequentional need of illegal income, or subsidising from the society.

The mafia today is involved both in "black" and "white" trade. They are proffessionals in both, and have no problem in getting customers. There is very little evidence to support the hope that the mafia can be fought through competition from legal drug trade.

- legal prescription reduces crime and prostitution

In many West European Legal Prescription Programmes (LPPs), it is shown that crime and prostitution is reduced among those who take part in the programmes.

When the users are forced to get drugs through the black market, they are also forced to to steal and prostitute themselves to get enough money. When they take part of an LPP, they don't have to pay so much for the drugs, and the neccessity of theft and prostitution is removed.

Legal prescription therefore reduces theft and prostitution, at least among those who take part of the programmes.

Comment:

This is wishful thinking, and has not been proved anywhere.

The ones who are taking part of an LPP are not only addicted to the drug. They are also dependent on the lifestyle. This include that they often go on with crimes and prostitution, also when taking part of an LPP.

It is not easy to get a job, even when on an LPP. Theft and prostitution then becomes a way to get some income.

In addition substantial quantities of drugs "leak" fronm the LPPs, especially from the maintenance programmes.

Legal prescription abusers often sell legally prescribed drugs on the black market, and support themselves that way as drug pushers. This way the LPPs contribute to an extension of the black market. And this again leads to increased crime and prostitution.

- the Swedish experiment on legal prescription of drugs in the sixties was very successful

The project got fantastic results.

People no longer had to fear overdoses and poisoning. They got the possibility to rise from degradation, prostitution and crime.

They returned to a socially well functioning life, in many cases they also got work, even if they were unable to stop using drugs.

Comment:

This is not correct. The experiment lead to something close to a cathastrophy in Sweden. This is well documented in several evaluation reports from the project.

The evaluation reports show that it is not correct that the ones who took part of the LPP returned to a well functioning life etc. The surveys point to the fact that the parttakers of the programmes were in a much worse shape, medically and socially, at the end of the programme, than they were at the beginning.

The LPP also leaked large quantities of drugs into the illicit market. The abusers tricked the doctors to prescribe more drugs than they needed, and they went to different doctors and got their quota from each of them.

In the course of the short periode of legal prescription, the number of drug addicts increased three times as fast as in the periode prior to the project.

The experiment increased the problems of the parttakers of the programmes, and at the same time it increased the general development of drug problems in the Swedish society, including poisoning and deaths. Two deaths within the programmme was the beginning to the end of it.

The increase of drug addiction simultaneously lead to an increase of crime all over Sweden.

The Swedish example should be a warning to the rest of the world. A liberal drug policy and liberal drug prescription programmes, will only lead to a development in the wrong direction.

- criminalization leads to an uneccesary use of "hard drugs"

The prohibition causes the crime organizations to concentrate on "hard drugs". These are easier to produce, concentrate and smuggle, and they give the highest profit. The organized crime therefore concentrate their efforts on these kinds of drugs.

Comment:

Organized crime wishes to make as much money as possible.

This may be obtained through legal trade.

It can also be obtained by "light" or "hard" drugs being used by as many as possible as often as possible.

Or they may make the profit on selling their goods at the highest prices they can get.

The different segments of the criminal world are working on different kinds of trade, and it is possible to make money on most things.

The organized international crime probably makes just as much money on cannabis as on "hard drugs".

- the criminalizing causes crime, the users get in contact with criminal environments

Drug traffic is criminalized. Those who sell drugs, are criminals who are also involved in other kinds of crime.

The ones who buy drugs therefore comes in contact with criminal circles and other crimes than drug crimes, when buying drugs. This way they are easily connected with other criminal activity. This is a result of prohibition and criminalizing.

The prohibition and the criminalizing causes therefore unneccesary crime.

Comment:

Experimenting with drugs is most frequent in milleus with a generally high crime rate, and other types of risky behavior. Therefore it is not correct to say that it is the drug legislation that leads the abusers into criminal environments. Quite a lot of the abusers have criminal experience before they start on drugs, or they have contacts within criminal circles.

There is neither any evidence that being concious of using illicit drugs, neccesarily leads a person into a criminal career. It rather seems that the dependency of drugs is the real motor in the criminal career of the abuser.

It is true that contact with drug pushers often include danger of contact with other criminal activities. But only when this contact coincides with the drug addiction, or when the person in question already have a diffident attitude to criminal activities, this lead to danger of developing ones own criminal career.

- interference from the police increases drug sale and general crime

Thomas Guntlasch, Chief inspector of the drug department of the police in Hamburg, explaines it this way: "We observe an abuser in the street, bearing drugs for personal use. We bring him in, interrogate him, write a report and confiscate the drug. As he only have drugs for personal use, we cannot hold him. We have to let him out on the street again.

He is very hungry for drugs, so what does he do? Well, he make some more thefts, sells the stolen goods and buys new drug instead of what we confiscated.

Our interference has in other words contributed to increase the general criminal activity."

Comment:

This expresses an attitude of complete resignation.

It is claimed that the police and the customs only lay their hands on a small part of the drug that is being distributed. If that is the case, the confiscation of one user dose must be a very minor part of the total drug trade, and the user's replenishing of the dose will only lead to an equally minor increase in the demand for drugs.

On the other hand the confiscation will act as a general preventive measure. In the cases when the confiscation also leads to a conviction, society duty or the motivation to treatment, the abuser will be gone from the drug market for a longer or shorter periode. That will decrease the demand and the criminal activity.

One should still have in mind that repressive measures have most effect when they are part of a meaningful whole of structured efforts (see the last chapter: Closing discussion).

- criminalizing costs the police too much

Drug abuse has reached such a level that it costs the police too much to aim their work at the users or the pushers on the street. The society cannot afford to spend any amount of resources on the police, so the police has to make strict priorities on which tasks they undertake.

Their resources must be put in where they can do most good; against the really big ones within the criminal world. Working on street level is not very effective. The ones they catch there, are as much victimes of the real criminals as they are criminals themselves.

Legalizing the drugs will give the police the possibility to concentrate on keeping law and order, and to combat real crime.

Comment:

Very many drug abusers are selling drugs to others. Of course the police must react to this activity.

The drug pushing at street level is the real motor of the drug traffic. Therefore it is neccesary that the police disturbs this as much as possible.

The drug pushing at street level is the link in a smuggling - and-pushing-hierarchy which is most difficult to replace. The higher up in the hierarchy, the easier it is to replace the one caught by the police. It is therefore of outmost importance that the police work at street level, and interfere with the last link in the chain as much as possible.

To reduce the cost of using police and other repressive measures, one has to concentrate much work on preventive measures, and measures with the aim to reduce the demand for drugs. (See also the last chapter: "Closing discussion").

- War on Drugs is a failiure

In spite of the enormous concentration on the "War on Drugs" programme, concerning both the police and other authorities, drug use has increased substantially through the last decades. It is in fact just in the War on Drug periode that drugs have spread fastest, both in Western Europe and in the world as a whole.

War on Drugs is a failiure. There are no examples anywhere that measures of this kind has reduced the drug problems.

One cannot trust repressive measures from the police and other authorities. The use of drugs must be tried diminished through measures that aims to reduce the demand.

Comment:

No, one cannot concentrate on repressive measures alone. But it is not War on Drugs that is a failiure. The failiure is the lack of other measures from the society. (See also last capter: "Closing discussion").

Other measures cost too much

To society legalizing is the cheapest way to cope with the drug problem. Repressive measures do not function. Other measures will cost too much. Social help, health programmes, rehabilitation programmes, accomodation programmes, labour market measures, education programmes, organized leisure time activities and great, encompassing information and educating programmes will cost enormous sums. It is not realistic to believe such measures to be taken. The political wind in Western Europe does not blow that way. Realisticly there will be concentrated less and less on such expensive programmes. Legalizing is therefore the one realistic alternative, and it is also a cheap alternative.

Comment:

This reasoning include both a calculation and an important value question.

People who suffer, and who are not able to liberate themselves from a harmful addiction, must be helped. This is the reason that we need social welfare, health service, rehabilitation programmes, labour programmes, educational programmes etc. for drug abusers. It would be an unacceptable break with both humanistic and Christian ethics, to arrange for a continued abuse, with all the suffering and degradation that leads to, instead of offering help. It is quite correct that the price for this is high. It is due to our neglect through several decades.

The price, in human suffering or in expenditure from the community, will only continue to rise, the longer we do not take the problems seriously.

No simple answer.

This have, I hope, been helpful to those who want to know the way the drug legalisers are thinking, and what arguments they are using. The comments are not the one and only true answer, but meant as a help to put the spotlight on the weaknesses of those arguments. Those who want to engage themselves in the discussion should study the arguments thoruoghly, and try to find their own answers and arguments.

Note, however, that just answering the arguments from the drug liberals, is a defensive starting point. The drug problem include important ethical and practical sets of problems, that need to be debated and developed on a free basis. This article does not give room for a wide debate. I must satisfy myself just by pointing to the relatively short summary in the last chapter.