Narrow the scope of the war on drugs: decriminalize and focus on addicts.
The Case for Drug Decriminalization
I’ve long been a proponent of decriminalization of all drugs. To an addict, a psychotropic drug is a psychotropic drug; addicts can nearly always fall back on any available substitute. Make one drug illegal and either the addict will find a way to get his hands on it, or find another drug. When the U.S. tried prohibition of the drug alcohol in the early 20th century, the results included monstrous black markets, corrupt cops and no reduction in use by addicts. Current prohibitions do the same, and as before it allows really bad people—nearly always alcohol and other-drug addicts—to become obscenely wealthy; illegality results in immense mark-ups. Worse, due to civil forfeiture laws that didn’t exist during the earlier prohibition, criminalizing drugs creates perverse incentives among law enforcers: they enrich themselves by taking property without due process.
The legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington State (and soon, due to recent election results, Oregon, Alaska and D.C.) is resulting in unintended consequences. However, while creating some bad results, they are arguably not as negative as those caused by criminalization. Still, bad side effects can be reduced by allowing business-owners, landlords and others to discriminate against pot users.
I generally wouldn’t knowingly hire, otherwise do business with or rent to an alcohol or other-drug addict. This includes those addicted to marijuana. We addictionologists have a unique tool to ferret out such addicts before or shortly after hiring someone: behavioral indications (see How to Spot Hidden Alcoholics). However, if we err it can be catastrophic to our pocketbook and sanity, and we can make mistakes because some addicts can make themselves appear normal for extended periods. Although I can often pick up likely addiction within minutes of meeting someone, I’ve missed a few after knowing them for years. Worse, non-addictionologists have no such tools. Therefore, employers need to be able to test and give employees who test positive one chance. This is especially crucial for employers of law enforcement personnel and other government employees. Landlords need to be given similar rights. Although this may result in occasional errors, such tough love would create far more sober addicts in the long run, which will be a net good for everyone.
Statistics cited in Drunks, Drugs & Debits reported that the prevalence of workplace injury among “users” and “those under the influence” (aka “addicts”) is monstrously greater than among non-addicts. While pot users may not engage in the reckless risks that alcoholics take, they may instead make stupid errors. Behaviors vary, just as they do with other drugs. Potheads may not work as hard as they would when sober. Some may be less focused, while others (especially long-term users) may suffer short-term memory loss. Their judgment may be impaired.
A correspondent from Washington State writes that he is seeing the effects of legalized pot in the workplace after only ten months of decriminalization. He’s watching co-workers getting, as he puts it, “dumber.”
Assembly-line workers are missing key steps and incorrectly installing parts. In one case, black boxes produced by an airplane supply company weren’t properly sealed before being put into a test chamber, where they were to undergo a leak test. Electronics costing $100,000 were ruined.
In Colorado, reports are trickling out of poisoned dogs as a result of eating pot-laced food and children getting high by eating pot-filled candies. Obviously, to reduce the number of such horrible accidents, strict controls and stringent enforcement is essential. And, no-nonsense consequences for such foul-ups need to be imposed.
The good news out of Colorado so far is, contrary to the expectations of many who do not understand how addiction to pot creates vastly different behaviors than addiction to alcohol and certain other drugs (such as methamphetamine), violent crimes are down (click here for a complete six-months-in analysis and click here for a more critical discussion). I suspect this may be a result of many alcoholics moving towards weed, which leads to less violence than does booze in addicts (just as alcohol use by addicts leads to less crazy behavior than does methamphetamine use by addicts). When violence occurs, I suspect drugs other than pot are usually in the mix, in which case those other drugs may be causing the other-destructive misbehaviors. Further, very few deaths occur solely from marijuana use; most of the time, such deaths occur in conjunction with the use of other drugs. Compare reported overdoses from pot (so small I can’t even find reliable statistics; maybe a few hundred yearly if that from “real” marijuana, as opposed to the synthetic versions) with 16,007 deaths from prescription painkillers in 2012 (the latest year for which data are available) and an estimated 88,000 yearly deaths from alcohol for years 2006 through 2010. Self-destructive results from pot pale in comparison to those from the use of other drugs, both legal and illegal.
As regular readers know, we believe the drug (or, let’s say, gun) isn’t the cause of problems; it’s the person on the drug (or wielding the gun). The focus of the War on Drugs should be narrowed to creating certain consequences for those people exhibiting misbehaviors as a result of use. This is true for both guns and drugs.