Welcome to Hippyland!

* Home of the Hippies *

 
Welcome to Hippyland's Archives!
The Archives are available for students and researchers to study this fascinating period in history.
This is an AD-FREE zone.
Read more about our Archives.

Please Support the Archives!

Archives: We're Losing the Drug War Because Prohibition Never Works   (Views: 9,781)


Contributed by Harrell Graham on November 21st, 2010

We're Losing the Drug War Because Prohibition Never Works

By Hodding Carter III. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Jul 13, 1989. pg. 1

There is clearly no point in beating a dead horse, whether you are a politician or a columnist, but sometimes you have to do it just the same, if only for the record. So, for the record, here's another attempt to argue that a majority of the American people and their elected representatives can be and are wrong about the way they have chosen to wage the "war against drugs." Prohibition can't work, won't work and has never worked, but it can and does have monumentally costly effects on the criminal justice system and on the integrity of government at every level.

Experience should be the best teacher, and my experience with prohibition is a little more recent than most Americans for whom the "noble experiment" ended with repeal in 1933. In my home state of Mississippi, it lasted for an additional 33 years, and for all those years it was a truism that the drinkers had their liquor, the preachers had their prohibition and the sheriffs made the money. Al Capone would have been proud of the latitude that bootleggers were able to buy with their payoffs of constables, deputies, police chiefs and sheriffs across the state.

But as a first-rate series in the New York Times made clear early last year, Mississippi's prohibition-era corruption (and Chicago's before that) was penny ante stuff compared with what is happening in the U.S. today. From Brooklyn police precincts to Miami's police stations to rural Georgia courthouses, big drug money is purchasing major breakdowns in law enforcement. Sheriffs, other policemen and now judges are being bought up by the gross. But that money, with the net profits for the drug traffickers estimated at anywhere from $40 billion to $100 billion a year, is also buying up banks, legitimate businesses and, to the south of us, entire governments. The latter becomes an increasingly likely outcome in a number of cities and states in this country as well. Cicero, Ill., during Prohibition is an instructive case in point.

The money to be made from an illegal product that has about 23 million current users in this country also explains why its sale is so attractive on the mean streets of America's big cities. A street salesman can gross about $2,500 a day in Washington, which puts him in the pay category of a local television anchor, and this in a neighborhood of dead-end job chances.

Since the courts and jails are already swamped beyond capacity by the arrests that are routinely made (44,000 drug dealers and users over a two-year period in Washington alone, for instance) and since those arrests barely skim the top of the pond, arguing that stricter enforcement is the answer begs a larger question: Who is going to pay the billions of dollars required to build the prisons, hire the judges, train the policemen and employ the prosecutors needed for the load already on hand, let alone the huge one yet to come if we ever get serious about arresting dealers and users?

Much is made of the cost of drug addiction, and it should be, but the current breakdown in the criminal justice system is not one of them. That breakdown is the result of prohibition, not addiction. Drug addiction, after all, does not come close to the far vaster problems of alcohol and tobacco addiction (as former Surgeon General Koop correctly noted, tobacco is at least as addictive as heroin). Hard drugs are estimated to kill 4,000 people a year directly and several tens of thousands a year indirectly. Alcohol kills at least 100,000 a year, addicts millions more and costs the marketplace billions of dollars. Tobacco kills over 300,000 a year, addicts tens of millions and fouls the atmosphere as well. But neither alcohol nor tobacco threaten to subvert our system of law and order, because they are treated as personal and societal problems rather than as criminal ones.

Indeed, every argument that is made for prohibiting the use of currently illegal drugs can be made even more convincingly about tobacco and alcohol. The effects on the unborn? Staggeringly direct. The effects on adolescents? Alcoholism is the addiction of choice for young Americans on a ratio of about 100 to one. Lethal effect? Tobacco's murderous results are not a matter of debate anywhere outside the Tobacco Institute.

Which leaves the lingering and legitimate fear that legalization might produce a surge in use. It probably would, although not nearly as dramatic a one as opponents usually estimate. The fact is that personal use of marijuana, whatever the local laws may say, has been virtually decriminalized for some time now, but there has been a stabilization or slight decline in use, rather than an increase, for several years. Heroin addiction has held steady at about 500,000 people for some time, though the street price of heroin is far lower now than it used to be. Use of cocaine in its old form also seems to have stopped climbing and begun to drop off among young and old alike, though there is an abundantly available supply.

That leaves crack cocaine, stalker of the inner city and terror of the suburbs. Instant and addictive in effect, easy to use and relatively cheap to buy, it is a personality-destroying substance that is a clear menace to its users. But it is hard to imagine it being any more accessible under legalization than it is in most cities today under prohibition, while the financial incentives for promoting its use would virtually disappear with legalization.

Proponents of legalization should not try to fuzz the issue, nonetheless. Addiction levels might increase, at least temporarily, if legal sanctions were removed. That happened after the repeal of Prohibition, or so at least some studies have suggested. But while that would be a personal disaster for the addicts and their families, and would involve larger costs to society as a whole, those costs would be minuscule compared with the costs of continued prohibition.

The young Capones of today own the inner cities and the wholesalers behind these young retailers are rapidly buying up the larger system which is supposed to control them. Prohibition gave us the Mafia and organized crime on a scale that has been with us ever since. The new prohibition is writing a new chapter on that old text. Hell-bent on learning nothing from history, we are witnessing its repetition, predictably enough, as tragedy.

Appeared in the Wall Street Journal Jul 13, 1989. Reprinted with permission. Copyright Dow Jones & Company Inc.



We're Losing the Drug War Because Prohibition Never Works
0 comments below
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

Related Links
· More about Drugs
· Articles by Harrell Graham


Most read story about Drugs:
Where Is Marijuana Legal?

Article Rating
Average Score: 0
Votes: 0

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Excellent
Very Good
Good
Regular
Bad

Options

 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

Associated Topics

FreedomPolitics

 
Main Menu
Search


Survey
Do You Support the Occupy Movement Protests?

Yes!
No!
Not Sure



Results | Polls

Votes 12293
New Articles
· Wrong answer, try again.
· Modernized Meat
· How Saving Water Helps Reduce Global Warming
· Cannabis in Alchemical Literature
· A Call to Elder Stoners: Your Job has Just Begun

[ More in News Section ]
Random Headlines

Politics
[ Politics ]

·Hopi Prophecy WWIII
·War on Terror is Very Big Business
·Former Revolutionary About to Become Brazil's President
·A Real Solution to the Economic Crisis
·Obama Speaks Out on Race
·A Government Spy in the SDS (1969)
·The Draft as a Means of Repression (1969)
·Democrats Response To Bush Comparing Iraq to Vietnam
·Articles of Impeachment against Dick Cheney
Features
· A Trip Thru the '60s
· Archives
· Ask The Old Hippy
· Columns
· Hip Profiles
· Hippies From A to Z
· Hippyland Tour
· Interviews
· Letters to Hippyland
· Links
· News
· Reviews
· Skip's Corner
New Reviews
· Irwin Klein And The New Settlers: Photographs Of Conterculture In New Mexico
· The Seeds
· Light Years: an Anthology (Multimedia in the East Village, 1960-1966)
· The Fundamental difference between King Crimson and the Brit Prog Cartel
· Blackburn & Snow
· Billy Fay
· Michael Chapman
· Jimmie Spheeris
· Bram Stoker (Prog Band)
· Robert Plant & his Band Of Joy