|
Send to a friend
Subscribe to FFF Email Update
Subscribe to Freedom Daily
Book Review
by Paul Armentano,
Posted July 12, 2004
Drug War Heresies by Robert J. MacCoun and Peter Reuter (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001); 479 pages; $28.00.
In the ongoing debate over drug policy, professors Robert MacCoun and
Peter Reuter are betwixt and between. On the one hand, government
officials have assailed their empirical data documenting prohibition’s
negligible impact on both drug use and perceived harm because it
undermines the feds’ allegation that tougher drug laws deter use. On
the other hand, their reluctance to embrace the libertarian tenet of
outright decriminalization or ally themselves with organizations that
advocate drug liberalization has left them ripe for criticism from the
reform community. Drug War Heresies will do little to please those on either side of the debate.
Having diligently studied the American approach to drug policy and its
real-world alternatives (primarily European and Australian models of
harm reduction), MacCoun and Reuter have, not surprisingly, reached the
conclusion that criminal drug prohibition causes greater overall harm
than good. Among these harms, they note that those of greatest
consequence — namely crime, morbidity, the creation of a black market,
and a steady erosion of civil liberties — are primarily the result of
drug prohibition rather than drug use. Nevertheless, MacCoun and Reuter
are not advocates of legalization, nor do they appear particularly
sympathetic to it. They maintain that the effects would be far too
uncertain to predict with any reasonable amount of specificity and
could result in a disproportionate number of negative ramifications.
One of the authors’ primary reasons for rejecting legalization
is a practical one. Both researchers clearly believe that legal reforms
to prohibition are urgent and necessary, yet they note that
legalization as a policy alternative is unrealistic because it enjoys
virtually no public or political support. In a fascinating section of
the book entitled “Why Have Legalizers Had So Little Impact?” they
conclude that despite an increase in public discussion in the 1980s and
1990s regarding legalization’s merits,
there is little indication that the legalization
movement is gaining popular support and considerable evidence that it
is falling largely on deaf ears.... At present, it is safe to say that
Americans are quite unpersuaded by the legalization position.
MacCoun and Reuter offer speculation as to why this is the case,
paying greatest attention to the likelihood that arguments in favor of
legalization are fundamentally more complex than the rigid “black
versus white” rhetoric of the prohibitionists. For example, they write,
philosophical bases for legalization — such as a comprehension of the
so-called unintended consequences of drug prohibition (e.g., the
apparent role of prohibition in promoting income-generating crime,
overburdening the criminal justice system, and diverting
law-enforcement resources away from other more serious crimes) — are
inherently more complex than those for prohibition. In addition,
legalizers are arguing against the status quo, thereby requiring them
to rely on “more complex arguments because their task of persuasion is
more difficult.”
Finally, MacCoun and Reuter note that legalization
“requires tradeoffs among competing values, tradeoffs that many
citizens find unpalatable if not completely unacceptable.” (Of course,
drug prohibition requires citizens to accept a myriad of tradeoffs as
well, primarily higher taxes and fewer civil liberties, though this
fact is rarely emphasized in public debate.)
Legalization’s most unacceptable tradeoff, they write, is the
threat of increased drug use due to lower prices, wider availability,
and the decreased fear of legal sanctions. Clearly, it’s the first two
factors that give the authors most reason for concern:
Unless strict regulations are adopted, a
legalization regime might well lead to the kind of aggressive marketing
of psychoactive drugs used now for tobacco and alcohol. In that sense,
drug legalization might indeed open the floodgates.
MacCoun and Reuter base their assertion on data from the Netherlands
showing a steep increase in marijuana use in the mid 1980s and 1990s
following a rise in the commercial marketing of and public access to
cannabis. The authors fear that a similar increase in overall drug use
could occur in the United States were such a system to be implemented
here.
The Netherlands example — one of the few we have available
to examine, as virtually no nations have modern experiences with the
legalization of drugs other than alcohol or tobacco — both raises
questions and provides answers. As the authors wisely note, the Dutch
first effectively removed criminal sanctions on the use of cannabis in
1976 — a move that was not followed by a marked increase in use for
some 10 years. (Studies regarding the impact of marijuana
decriminalization — a policy whereby cannabis users face an
administrative fine in lieu of a criminal arrest for possessing
personal-use quantities of pot — in Australia as well as several U.S.
states have also indicated that the removal of criminal sanctions on
possession does not causally lead to an increase in use.) These facts
would appear to indicate that decriminalization alone has little impact
on use but that the allowance of public establishments where marijuana
may be commercially marketed and sold (the so-called “coffee-shop”
phenomenon which exploded in Holland in the mid 1980s and remains
unique to the Dutch) does increase use.
The notable problem with this theory, however, is that the use
of (primarily) marijuana and other illicit substances rose sharply in
most other Western nations — many of which, like the United States, had
recently toughened their anti-drug laws — during this same time period,
indicating that the prevalence of drug use waxes and wanes regardless
of drug availability or existent (or nonexistent) drug penalties.
Among studies of current drug users, few cite fear of getting
caught as a deterrent, as virtually none believe they will actually be
arrested by law enforcement. Among studies of former users, most cite
health concerns and family obligations as their primary reasons for
quitting. Specific to cannabis, among those who have never experimented
with it, most cite “not thinking they would like it,” as their chief
reason for abstaining; few answer, “because it’s illegal,” and even
fewer answer, “because it’s difficult to get ahold of.” In fact, more
than 85 percent of U.S. teens have consistently responded to government
surveys that marijuana is “very easy” or “fairly easy” to obtain
despite prohibition.
These latter facts would seem to argue in favor of
legalization. Nevertheless, MacCoun and Reuter — who are no doubt aware
of much of this evidence — appear to take a more “middle of the road”
position in favor of “depenalization,” whereby nonviolent drug users
would no longer face long jail terms. I say “appear” because, despite Drug War Heresies’s 450-plus pages, MacCoun and Reuter avoid endorsing any substantive, sweeping drug-law policy changes.
They acknowledge and, at times, praise various European reforms of
harm-reduction, such as needle-exchange, safe-use campaigns targeted at
addicts, and the expansion of methadone-maintenance programs, but they
nevertheless conclude, “Increased treatment and prevention, even under
the most generous scenarios, will not solve the U.S. drug problem.”
They criticize current U.S. strategies: “Society is forgoing
significant reductions in drug-related damage by its unwillingness to
make policy changes that risk sending the wrong message,” they lament,
but then turn around and reject legalization or any alternative drug
liberalization policies that would significantly dismantle prohibition.
Then, with seemingly few alternatives remaining, they appear to
throw up their hands in frustration, declaring, “It is doubtful that a
complete ‘solution’ exists.” Though candid, it’s a bittersweet
conclusion that will no doubt do little to change MacCoun and Reuter’s
reputations as fence-sitters in the global drug-policy debate.
Paul Armentano is the senior policy analyst for the NORML Foundation in Washington, D.C. Send him email.
This article originally appeared in the April 2004 edition of Freedom Daily.
|