NCJ Number
172378
Date Published
1998
Length
20 pages
Annotation
Continuing legal prohibition as the major strategy for combatting drugs is to attempt the impossible by means that have already been discredited; historical and cross-cultural evidence suggests that a wiser course would be to aim for a realistic accommodation, to permit but discourage risky misadventures by means that have already proven effective.
Abstract
American presidents are fond of declaring "war" on targeted problems. "War" implies aggression against an enemy, and it is an unfortunate characteristic of American culture that the country needs an enemy. The "enemy" in the "war" on drugs has tended to be the stereotypical drug user and dealer, i.e., blacks or Hispanics, the poor (or unjustly rich), those unwilling to work, and those quick to resort to violence. This stereotype of the drug user, however, is contradicted by national surveys that show regularly employed, middle-class whites are the dominant drug users. Throughout all of recorded history, and probably much earlier according to archeological evidence, psychoactive drugs have been used by humans. Whether or not this is perceived as a problem depends largely on the cultural values and tolerance of the society in which drug use occurs. In America drugs have become associated with the criminal element and ethnic minorities, so the "war" on drugs is being waged by the criminal justice system against minorities, who are being incarcerated for drug offenses in record numbers. The failure and the distortions of the "war" on drugs suggests that a "liberalization" of drug policy -- rather than legalization, re-legalization, or decriminalization - - is warranted. To allow people legal access to a substance does not mean that they need have unrestricted access to unlimited quantities. It might be feasible for different jurisdictions to develop some natural experiments by adopting different regulations within a broad pattern of liberalization. 46 references