ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, October 3, 1996 TAG: 9610030098
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-8 EDITION: METRO
ADVOCATES FOR legalizing at least some drugs in the United States make an increasingly interesting case that often is met by only the vague fears and moralizing of opponents - good enough for earnest parent-child discussions, perhaps, but less than convincing in public-policy debates.
Mathea Falco adds hard-nosed, realistic thinking to the view, held by a majority of Americans, that illegal drugs are illegal for good reason, and should remain so - while also acknowledging that the nation's war on drugs is following a losing battle plan.
The drug war's failure has given impetus to a view, shared by some liberals and conservatives alike, that "taking the crime out of drugs," while creating some new addicts, would benefit society overall. According to this view, legalization would take hundreds of thousands of drug violators out of the criminal-justice system, eliminate crimes committed to get money for drugs, reduce the violence that accompanies drug trafficking, dramatically cut law-enforcement costs and create a new source of tax revenue on the sale of the drugs.
Falco, a former assistant secretary of state for international narcotics matters, challenges these premises in her book, "The Making of a Drug-Free America: Programs That Work."
Because the drug war has failed so miserably, the burden of proof may fall to opponents of decriminalization to explain why the status quo is preferable to a new approach. But the proponents of decriminalization, if they are ultimately to persuade the rest of the country, must at least deal with Falco's contentions. She argues that:
*Legalization would not eliminate drug crime. Unless addictive drugs such as heroin and cocaine were as freely available as table salt, black-market sales would continue, along with attendant criminal activities.
*Prohibiting children's access to drugs that enjoy widespread use among adults would not work well - indeed, does not work well. Alcohol and tobacco sales to young people are prohibited, but a majority of high school seniors drink, and almost one-third smoke. By contrast, far fewer students report using illegal drugs, and more than 90 percent according to one survey disapprove of regular drug use.
*The price of legalized heroin and cocaine would have to be low enough to dampen black-market sales, but high enough to discourage use (providing all sides can agree that the social pathologies of drug addiction make widespread use an untenable outcome). Such pricing would be impossible to achieve.
Cocaine, Falco explains, "is so cheap to produce that illegal dealers could successfully undercut the legal market even if the official price were set as low as $10 a gram. But at that price, a 'line' of cocaine would cost only 40 cents, well within the reach of every child."
The drug laws set societal limits on what is permissible; erasing that line would reverse increasingly negative attitudes about drug use and undermine prevention efforts. Yet, Falco concedes, get-tough policies pack political punch and prisons, but are not arresting demand.
What's needed, she argues, is to keep laws on the books while emphasizing a public-health approach. This view does not seem incompatible, to us anyway, with proposals either to reform the mandatory sentencing of drug violators, or to decriminalize some drugs, such as marijuana, while preserving sanctions against more dangerous substances.
In any case, some sort of shift from law enforcement toward health promotion would likely help.
Tomorrow: If there's no demand, there will be no supply.
LENGTH: Medium: 65 linesby CNB