II. MEDICAL 4 THE DRUG PUSHER

The drug business, an evil business, is responsible for agonizing deaths, crime, robbery, enforced prostitution, and often murder. The addict is usually marked for life, even after “kicking the habit.” During the addictive period, the addict is a helpless slave to the drug, willing to enter into any degradation to secure “one more fix.”

How then can the evil nature of the drug pusher be questioned? How can we even presume to look upon him with favor?

The evils commonly blamed on heroin addiction are in reality the fault of the prohibition of drugs and not of the addiction itself. Given the prohibition of drugs, it is the person who sells drugs illegally who does more than anyone to mitigate the evil effects of the original prohibition.

The prohibition of heroin has the devastating effect of forcing the price up to a level which can only be characterized as astronomical. When a commodity is outlawed, in addition to all the usual costs of growing, harvesting, curing, transporting, merchandising, etc., the costs of evading the law and paying for the punishments meted out when the evasion fails, must be added. In the case of bootleg whiskey (during the prohibition era of the 20s), these extra costs were not excessive because law enforcement was lax and the legislation did not have widespread popular support. In the case of heroin, these costs are enormous. Anti-heroin legislation enjoys wide popular support, with demands for even stricter laws and penalties. Vigilante groups and youth gangs in the inner city ghetto areas have inflicted their own punishment on drug pushers and addicts. These groups have had the quasi-support of the “law and order” faction, making it difficult and expensive to bribe the police who fear the great penalties society would impose on them if they were caught.

In addition to having to pay costly bribes to the police, the drug merchants must also pay high salaries to their employees for the dangers they encounter in smuggling and operating the factories which prepare the drugs for street sales. They must also exercise a degree of paternalism in taking care of those employees who are caught bribing politicians, lawyers, and judges to minimize the penalties.

These are the factors which account for the high price of heroin. But for these many extra costs imposed by the prohibition of heroin, the price would not differ in any significant way from the price of other crops (wheat, tobacco, soya beans, etc.). If heroin were legalized, an addict could obtain his daily need for about the cost of a loaf of bread, according to the best estimates.

Under prohibition, heroin addiction may cost as much as $100 per day for a mature habit. Depending upon market information and alternative sources of supply, the addict spends about $35,000 per year to support his habit. It is obvious that this cost is responsible for the untold human suffering usually blamed on heroin addiction. The typical addict is usually young, uneducated, and unable to earn a sufficient amount of money by honest means to support his habit. If he does not seek medical and psychiatric help, the only choice the addict can make to secure his “fix” is to enter into a life of crime where he may eventually be hunted down by the police or street gangs. Furthermore, the addict criminal is in a far worse position than the nonaddict. The nonaddict criminal can select the most opportune time and place for a robbery. But the addict must commit a crime whenever he needs a “fix,” and these times usually occur when his reactions are dulled by his drug deprivation.

In reflecting upon the economics of “fencing” stolen merchandise, it becomes obvious that the addict must commit an enormous amount of crime to support his habit. To have the annual amount of $35,000 necessary to buy drugs, the addict must steal roughly five times that amount (almost $200,000 per year), since the buyers of stolen merchandise (fences), usually pay only 20 percent or less of the retail value of what they buy. If the figure of $200,000 is multiplied by the estimated 10,000 addicts in New York City, the total of $20 billion is the amount of the total value lost in crimes committed by addicts in the Big Apple.

It cannot be stressed strongly enough that these crimes are due to the prohibition of heroin and not the result of heroin addiction. It is the prohibition that drastically forces its price up and drives the addict into a life of crime and brutishness which may end in his own death or that of the victim.

To prove this point, consider the small but significant number of medical doctors who, having access to heroin, have addicted themselves. Its price is not prohibitive since their supply of the drug is not illegal. Their lives are “normal,” useful, and fulfilling—with just this one difference. Economically speaking, their lives would not be too different if, instead of being addicted to heroin, they were diabetics and addicted to insulin. With either addiction, these doctors would still be able to function professionally. If, however, their legal supply of heroin were cut off (or insulin were suddenly declared illegal), these doctors would be at the mercy of the street pusher, unable to ascertain the quality of the drugs they purchased, and forced to pay exorbitant prices for their supply. Under these changed circumstances the position of the addicted doctor would be more difficult, but it would not be catastrophic, since most of these professionals could easily afford the $35,000 annual cost of their habit. But what of the uneducated addict living in poverty, who does not have these prospects?

The function of the heroin seller, as opposed to his motivation in entering the field, is to keep the price of the drug down. Each time a few more heroin sellers enter the industry, the price goes down even more. Conversely, each time the number of heroin sellers decreases (through discouragement or prosecution), the price rises. Since it is not the sale or use of heroin itself that is responsible for the plight of the addict or for the crimes he commits, but rather the high price of heroin caused by its prohibition, it must follow that any action which results in a drop in the price of the drug alleviates the problem. If the problem is caused by the high cost of the drug, then lowering the cost must be considered as a solution.

But it is the heroin pusher who is instrumental in lowering the price of the drug, and the forces of “law and order” who are responsible for raising these prices by interfering with the activities of the pusher. Therefore, it is the much reviled drug dealer, not the widely beloved narcotics agent (“narc”), who must be considered the heroic figure.

Legalization of heroin has been rejected on the grounds that progress and civilization would come to a halt. The British and Chinese experience with addictive drugs are cited, and we are supposed to picture scores of people lying around in the street, zonked out of their minds. The argument is that anything which interferes with progress, such as the widespread use of heroin, should be prohibited. But there are other things that can interfere with continued progress which most people would not be willing to prohibit—leisure, for one. If employees took vacations which amounted to 90 percent of the working year, “progress” would certainly falter. Should long vacations be prohibited? Hardly. In addition, the present prohibition of heroin does not eliminate access to the drug. Formerly, it was available only in the inner city ghettos; today it can be purchased on affluent suburban street corners and schoolyards.

In the example of the Chinese experience with drugs, Chinese merchants were forced by gun boat “diplomacy” to accept opium. The legalization of addictive drugs would in no way force individuals into the habit. Indeed, force, or the elimination of force, is the chief reason for scrapping the prohibition of heroin.

In the British case (drugs administered legally, at a low cost, by a doctor or licensed clinic), the argument has been made that the number of addicts has risen sharply since their low cost program started. But this rise is a statistical artifact. Formerly, many people were reluctant to report themselves as addicts when it was illegal to be one. When addiction was legalized and low cost drugs were available, the statistics naturally rose. The British Government Health Service administers drugs to certified addicts only. It would, indeed, be surprising if there were any marked increase in the rate of addiction under these circumstances.

Another source of the increase in the number of statistically counted addicts is the migration to the United Kingdom from Commonwealth countries. This sudden immigration might well cause temporary problems of adjustment, but it is hardly an indictment of the British plan. On the contrary, it provides ample testimony to the farsightedness and progressiveness of the program. To blame this program for the rise in addiction would be similar to blaming Dr. Christiaan Barnard (the first doctor to perform transplant heart surgery) for the rise in the number of people in South Africa who wanted heart surgery.

In conclusion, it should be stated that heroin addiction may be an unmitigated evil, without any socially redeeming features. If so, efforts to publicize the evils of addiction can only be applauded. However, the present prohibition of heroin and other hard drugs serves no useful purpose. It has caused a countless amount of suffering, and great social upheaval. In seeking to uphold this vicious law, the narcotics agent keeps prices up and adds to the tragedy. It is only the heroin seller, by acting so as to lower prices, even at considerable personal risk, who saves lives and alleviates the tragedy somewhat.

5

THE DRUG ADDICT

At the present time, with the intense discussion on the evils of heroin addiction, it is well to heed the old adage—“listen to both sides of the story.” Among the many reasons for this, and perhaps most important, is the fact that if everyone is against something (particularly heroin addiction), one can assume that there is something which can be said in its favor. Throughout mankind’s long and disputatious history, the majority opinion has, the majority of times, been wrong.

On the other hand, even those who agree with the majority opinion should also welcome an attack upon it. The best way to teach the verities of life, according to the Utilitarian John Stuart Mill, is by hearing the opposition. Let the position be challenged, and let the challenge fail. This method was considered by Mill to be so important that he recommended inventing a challenging position, if a real one was not forthcoming, and presenting it as convincingly as possible. Thus, those who believe in the unmitigated evils of heroin addiction should be eager to hear an argument in favor of it.

The phenomenon of addiction should be considered from an intrinsic point of view. That is, the assumption will be that the social or interpersonal problem—the necessity for an addict to become involved in criminal activities in order to support his habit—has been solved. For this is caused by the legislation which prohibits the sale of narcotic drugs, and thus is a problem extrinsic to the drug itself. The intrinsic problems of addiction are all the other problems addicts are alleged to face.

“To be honest with you I’m very much satisfied with the quality of drugs from the pharmaceutical house I deal with now.”

Primary on any list of the nonsocial problems of drug addiction is the allegation that addiction shortens life. Depending on the age and health of the addict, and the pessimism or optimism of the alleger, the figure by which life is said to be shortened varies between 10 and 40 years. This is indeed unfortunate, but it hardly constitutes a valid criticism of addiction, and it most certainly does not justify the prohibition of heroin use.

It does not constitute a valid criticism or justify prohibition because it is up to the individual to determine the kind of life he will lead—a short one, including what he considers to be pleasurable activities, or a longer one, without such enjoyment. Since there is no objective criterion for such choices, there is nothing irrational or even suspect about any choice on the spectrum. One may choose to maximize the possibility of longevity, even if this means the renunciation of liquor, tobacco, gambling, sex, travel, crossing the street, heated debate, and strenuous exercise. Or, one may choose to engage in any or all of these activities, even if that means a shortened lifespan.

Another argument leveled against addiction is that it prevents people from fulfilling their responsibilities. The example usually given is that of a father who, under the continuous influence of heroin, becomes incapable of fulfilling his financial and other obligations to his family. Let us assume that heroin addiction incapacitates the father. It still does not follow that the use and sale of heroin should be prohibited. It would be unreasonable to prohibit any activity on the grounds that it prevents some people from functioning in certain ways. Why should the people who are not impaired or who do not have like responsibilities be restricted? Were it proper to prohibit heroin for this reason, surely it would also be proper to prohibit gambling, drinking, smoking, automobile driving, air travel, and other dangerous or potentially dangerous activities. But this would be patently absurd.

Should heroin be legal for some people but not for the others who do not accept or fulfill their responsibilities because of their addiction? No. When a man, to continue the example, marries, he does not agree to renounce all activities which might be dangerous. The marriage contract is not, after all, a slave contract. Marriage does not prevent either party from engaging in activities which might discomfort the other. People with responsibilities do get heart attacks from playing tennis. But no one would suggest that people with responsibilities be barred from sports activities.

Another argument against drug addiction is the claim that users become totally nonproductive and thus, as a group, lower the GNP (Gross National Product)—an index of the economic well-being of the country as a whole. Thus, the argument runs, drug addiction hurts the country.

The argument is specious, because it considers the country’s well-being a meaningful concept, rather than the addict’s. But even in its own terms, it is not convincing. It is based upon an equation of the GNP with economic well-being. And this equation is fallacious. The GNP, for example, counts all government spending as contributing to the well-being of the country, whether it actually does so or not. It fails to take into account the work of housewives done in the home. Furthermore, it completely miscontrues the economic status of leisure. Any assessment of economic well-being must assign some value to leisure, but the GNP does not. For example, the GNP should double with the introduction and full-time implementation of an invention which allowed people to double their output of real goods and services. But if the people choose to use the invention to just maintain their standard of living and instead halve their workday, the GNP would not change by one iota.

It is true that if addiction to heroin leads to increased leisure, it will cause a fall in the GNP. But an increase in leisure for any reason will have the same effect. Therefore, if we oppose addiction on this ground, we must also oppose enjoyable vacations, poetic contemplation, and walks in the woods. The list of proscribed activities could be endless. There is nothing wrong with choosing to utilize an increase in wealth by increasing one’s leisure. And if the GNP decreases thereby, so much the worse for the GNP.

Finally, it is by no means clear that addiction necessarily leads to lessened economic activity. Most of our knowledge about the behavior of addicts comes from the study of those who, because of legislation which prohibits heroin and, therefore, skyrockets its price, must spend most of their time in an agonizing search for vast sums of money. They cannot hold traditional jobs because most of their time is spent stealing, murdering, and prostituting. Since we are concentrating on the personal problem of addiction and not on the social problem, the evidence afforded by these people is irrelevant to the discussion. To study the behavior of addicts who are not prohibited by law from being productive, we must turn to those few addicts who are lucky enough to be insured a steady supply of low-cost heroin.

This group is composed mainly of doctors who can use their prescription-writing powers to insure themselves a steady supply. The limited evidence furnished by this small sample seems to indicate that addicts, freed from the compulsions induced by heroin prohibition, are able to lead rather normal and productive lives. The doctors in question provide service as adequately as other doctors. From all indications, they are able to keep up with the latest developments in their field, maintain a proper relationship with their patients, and function no differently, in all relevant aspects, from other physicians.

To be sure, were heroin legal, addicts would continue to have drug-related personal problems. There would be the fear of possible renewal of prohibition, and the relative incapacitation following the periods of drug use. There would be the danger of overdosing, although it would lessen under legalization, since the drug could be administered under the supervision of a doctor. Vestiges of the old prohibitory attitude might remain and manifest themselves in the form of prejudice against addicts.

The point to be stressed, however, is not that addicts will have drug-related problems even under legalization. Special problems almost always accompany special interests; violin players are always in fear of injuring their fingers and ballerinas cannot afford stubbed toes. Addiction to heroin is not in and of itself an evil. If it is legalized, it cannot possibly hurt anyone but the user of the drug. There are those who may want to speak out, educate, and advertise against it, but to prohibit it is clearly a violation of the rights of those who wish to use it.