Drug Legislation; R. Patton

-Mainline to Disaster ROBERT PATTON IN THE LONG-STANDING debate over the question of drug legislation in the United States, two major and opposite positions stand out. There are those who call for im mediate legalization of marijuana. Some would go so far as to lift the ban on all drugs including heroin and other so-called "hard" nar cotics as well. Others decry what they see as a breakdown in moral order and vehemently oppose any letup in the government's war against the manufacture, sale, and use of illegal drugs. They fre quently point to the high incidence of drug-related crime - particu larly in major population centers such as New York City - as a ma jor argument for their case against drugs. There can be no argument against the obvious fact that such crime is on the rise. The problem has reached such proportions that law enforcement officials fre quently point with pride to a de crease in the rate of increase of violent crimes against persons and property in a given year. And the connection between drug addic tion and crimes against persons and property is well documented.

To sustain a $50 per day narcot ics habit, the addict needs re sources, which may lead him to Mr. Patton is a graduate student and part-time lecturer in physics at Hunter College in New York City. 45 46 THE FREEMAN January steal enormous amounts of prop erty ranging to $2500 or more each week! Few would argue with the as sertion that the widespread use of drugs is detrimental in the ex treme both to the unfortunates who have become dependent upon them and to others who pay a bit ter price in property loss, personal injury, and the debilitating fear that oppresses those who dwell in our once great cities. The very foundations of our social order would appear to be threatened by this pernicious epidemic that rages unchecked through our midst. Most pitiful is the fact that the primary victims of narcotics ad diction are the young - those in whose hands our future rests. HuntinOg the Villains Human nature being what it is, it is perhaps not surprising that our first instinct is to seek the vil lains that are responsible for our affliction. And find them we do. We find them in the persons of popu lar singers who, allegorically or directly, extol the virtues of drugs in their songs, in the pushers who prowl our streets, campuses, and even playgrounds. And we find them in the specter of organized crime, the syndicate, the interna tional narcotics czars.

The answers seem obvious. Crack down on the street pusher. Guard the borders. Impose eco nomic sanctions on the countries of origin. Clean up our films, our books, our records. Use the pow ers of the Federal Communica tions Commission to deprive the apostles of drugs of the podium from which they transmit their message of doom to our nation's youth. But many of these answers have been tried to one degree or another, whereas the problem grows at an accelerated pace. Why? Again the obvious answers. Soft judges. Corrupt police. Lax cus toms agents. Spineless do-gooders in government. Get tough - de clare all-out war on narcotics and the problem will be solved. Unfortunately, we are all too slow to learn from our mistakes. We have, after all, trod this path once before, in the twenties, the era of bathtub gin, the speakeasy, and the St. Valentine's Day mas sacre. The conclusions that can be drawn from our nation's experi ence with alcohol prohibition are painfully obvious. Contrary to the desires of our undoubtedly well intentioned legislators, the net ef fect of the Eighteenth Amend ment was to increase the use of hard liquor in the nation; the ef fect of repeal was to decrease it, although never to its pre-Prohibi tion level.

This argument, of course, has 1973 DRUG LEGISLATION-MAINLINE TO DISASTER 47 been raised before and the usual reply is that hard narcotics such as heroin are incomparably more dangerous to the individual and to society than alcohol. It is further argued that, in attempting to eliminate the use of alcohol, pro hibition was doomed to failure be cause alcoholic beverages are part of our Western cultural tradition. Hall-Truths These arguments are both true and dangerously misleading. Cer tainly, heroin is far more danger ous in its effects than alcohol. But if the parallel we have been drawing between Prohibition and present drug legislation is valid then there is all the more reason to believe that the net effect of drug prohibition will be infinitely more pernicious than alcohol pro hibition proved to be. Further more, while narcotic use is not yet a part of our Western tradition, there is every reason to believe it is fast becoming so and that drug prohibition is largely responsible.

Let us not forget that many of the folk heroes of our Revolution, such as John Hancock, were smugglers who openly defied the authority of the British crown. Can anyone deny that within an increasingly large segment of our nation's youth - men of the same age as those who defied the rule of force at· Lexington and Concord - there is much the same regard for those who defy our drug laws as there was for the Hancocks during our beginnings as a free and inde pendent people. It is ironic that the strongest support for the enforcement ap proach to the drug problem tends to come from the ranks of politi cal conservatives. For it is from conserva ti ve economic theories that the most devastating argu ment against drug control through legislation can be made: the argu ment that the only effective con trol of harmful drugs is that im posed by the untrammeled opera tion of the free market. In such a market the will of the consumer, as expressed through the mechan ism of price, reigns supreme.

They Prey on the Young The biggest villain in today's drug picture is the unscrupulous pusher whose prey are the young people on our college campuses, schoolyards, and playgrounds. Those that become his customers may eventually have narcotics habits that cost as much as $500 per week tq support. For the vast majority of addicts, to support such a habit by honest labor is impossible. And so the addict en ters a twilight world in which long periods of driving need are punc tuated by moments of incapaci tating euphoria. He lives from fix 48 THE FREEMAN January to fix; nothing else matters. To get that next fix he will lie, cheat, steal or even kill if necessary. No wonder then that some 60 to 80 per cent of all crimes against property are committed by narcot ics addicts. Yet, these crimes are committed to supply a habit that, in the absence of restrictive drug legislation would cost no more to maintain than the habit of a heavy cigarette smoker. How many tobacco merchants do we find haunting elementary school play grounds to entice youngsters into smoking their first cigarette? The very suggestion is ludicrous. Why?

Simply because the profits on the sale of cigarettes do not supply sufficient incentive. Thus the very actions of govern ment that are intended to curb the use and sale of dangerous narcot ics act instead to line the coffers of organized crime. Suppose the all-out war against narcotics that many call for were actually ini tiated. Forgetting the inevitable corruption in the ranks of those who would be called upon to fight this crusade, let us assume that the government succeeds in totally shutting off aU of the present sources of narcotics. What would be the immediate consequences of such a program? The addict, thus deprived of his usual source of supply would be driven to the point of desperation. Burglaries and robberies of phar macies and doctor's offices would likely reach record heights. What small supplies of narcotics re mained on the streets would change hands at fantastically in flated prices. Those who could not pay these prices would either steal drugs or do without. But an ad dict cannot "do without" drugs in the same way that one can do with out a new shirt or a pair of shoes.

The vast armies of addicts who were left without the psychologi cal crutch that their habit pro vides would represent an enormous potential market for anyone who could supply their need. The pre cise way in which that need would be filled cannot be predicted. That it would be filled is a certainty. Market Principles The principles that apply here are identical with those that apply to any market situation. Economic law knows no moral code. When the demand for any commodity outruns the supply, the price of that commodity will inevitably rise. At the present time, the "market" price for heroin at the level of the street dealer is more than one hundred times the cost of manufacture. The reason is plain. The manufacture, sale, and dis tribution of heroin is a high-risk venture. The action of government, and nothing else, is responsible 1973 DRUG LEGISLATION-MAINLINE TO DISASTER 49 . for the high price levels that now prevail. The "all-out war" that we are discussing would further raise these prices in proportion to the intensity of the crackdown. The il legal drug market is subject to the very same principles of economics that apply when the issue is price control or minimum wage legisla tion.

On September 21, 1970, the Fed eral government initiated a crack down on the illegal drug traffic across the Mexican border. Opera tion Intercept, as ·it was called, was an unqualified success; the New York Times Encyclopedic Al manac for 1970 calls it "the largest civil search and seizure operation ever conducted in peacetime." A virtual army of radar-equipped patrol boats and search planes slowed the immense flow of nar cotics (chiefly marijuana) into this country from Mexico to a dribble. The result? One month later, on October 22, a joint legis la tive committee of Congress heard testimony that heroin use among New York City youngsters had jumped alarmingly. By drying upthe supply of marijuana, Opera tion Intercept had raised street prices to the point that heroin be came competitive with it. The inevitable consequences of the enforcement approach to nar cotics has been stated most suc cinctly by Peter Drucker writing in Saturday Revie'w of May 13, 1972: Paradoxically, every "victory" in the "war against narcotics" increases the profitability of this trade and soon creates new pushers, more ad dicts, and bigger profits. When the narcotics agents "smash a drug ring"

and confiscate 50 kilograms of heroin, the drug temporarily becomes scarce around Manhattan, in downtown San Francisco, or on Harvard Square. The price goes up - and with it the profit for the drug rings whose sources of supply are still intact. Addicts be come more desperate. Crime and vio lence - and with them, fear.- r!se more sharply. More people are lured by their own need and by the high profits into becoming peddlers and pushers, producing still more addicts. But this. has been perhaps a bit one-sided. What of the govern ment's point of view? What do the officials charged with "curbing the drug traffic" have to say? Inter viewed by U.S. News & World Re port in their September 25, 1972 issue, Nelson G. Gross, Senior Ad viser, International Narcotics Mat ters, Department of State, was asked if progress had been made in stopping the illegal importation of heroin. Responding in the af firmative, Mr. Gross described the tangible results of an eighteen month government crackdown on the international drug traffic: "The availability of heroin on the streets is less than it was a year ago. The 50 THE FREEMAN January quality is not as good. The whole sale price is higher, and the retail price - which is what addicts pay - is higher ."Later in the same in terview, Gross indicates that he is aware of a second major conse quence of the crackdown as he points out that" ... those engaged in the drug traffic are turning to other sources of supply, and new routes are being developed to keep the flow of heroin coming to the U.S."

Gross also refers to the growing traffic in low grade, Mexican "brown" heroin. "There has not been an appreciable amount of brown heroin used within our bor ders," he observes, "although in creasing supplies are beginning to appear asa result of the East Coast shortage of heroin." [italics added] Incredibly, there is no disagree ment .between Gross and Drucker as to the consequences of strict en forcement of drug prohibition. Methadone Addiction The current methadone contro versy is a second case in point. Methadone is a synthetic drug that, taken in appropriate doses, can satisfy the heroin addict's craving and prevent the appear ance of withdrawal symptoms without inducing euphoria.Dos .. ages above this "appropriate" level, however, are intoxicating. Since 1964 various clinical pro grams have been instituted in which methadone is administered regularly to heroin addicts to en able them to live near normal lives, to hold down regular jobs and so on. According to the August 11, 1972, issue of the prestigious journal, Science, 50,000 heroin ad dicts presently are enrolled in such clinical methadone "maintenance"

programs in the U.S. Discussing new regulations proposed by the Food and Drug Administration, Science reports: The new guidelines basically recog nize methadone as a safe and effective drug, but surround its use with re strictions aimed at curbing a black market that has been spreading at an alarming rate ... Doctors through carelessness or ignorance, have dis pensed prescriptions for methadone tablets that are promptly sold for up to $10 apiece so that the "patient" can buy more heroin. Who could be paying $10 for a drug that is dispensed free to heroin addicts? There are only two possibilities. Black market methadone is being sold both to heroin addicts enrolled in metha done programs who wish to in crease their intake of the drug to a level that allows them the eu phoric escape from reality they crave, and to primary methadone users - individuals addicted to or 1973 DRUG LEGISLATION-MAINLINE TO DISASTER 51 becoming addicted to methadone itself. An ironic but likely possi bility is that individuals may be using methadone in the mistaken belief that, since it is dispensed by the government, it must not be harmful.

In methadone we have a com modity that is in demand - either actually or potentially - and it should come as no surprise that a market has developed around it. What we must realize is that certain men have existed in every society by pandering to the weak nesses and vices of their fellows. Their modus operandi is diaboli cally simple. Find a commodity or service for which there is a mar ket, have government outlaw it, then move in and reap the rich financial rewards made possible by the artificially high·. price levels maintained by the government re strictions on the prod uct. Not only is this technique profitable, it is relatively safe; for the greater the force with which government attempts to destroy such a mar ket, the higher the price levels and the profits attendant on those prices. And the higher the profits, the more police officials, customs agents, and judges can be "bought"

by the syndicate. Crackdowns ini tiated in response to public pres sure will ineyitably fall heaviest on the small operators, while the financiers and organizers sit tight in their penthouses until the. heat is off once again. The British Experience Those that oppose the liberaliza tion or repeal of our present drug laws often point to the "failure" of such an approach as in Great Britain. For many years narcotic drugs were available to British ad dicts by prescription. Then, in re sponse to statistical indications that drug use was on the rise, the government clamped down. The conclusion drawn from this is that any letup in the government's war on narcotics mandates a rise in the use of hard drugs. Several im portant points are overlooked by such a conclusion. First, although drug addiction undeniably in creased in Britain during those years of limited restrictions, it never reached the epidemic propor tions that it has in this country.

Furthermore, a large part of that increase - perhaps the greater part - can be attributed to the large numbers of American ad dicts that emigrated to Britain so they could supply their habit with out being driven to criminal acts. And that leads to a most important point: addiction in Britain has never been associated with crime to the extent that it is here. This, in fact, is the justification given for the methadone programs dis cussed earlier. An addict in a 52 THE FREEMAN January methadone program is as much an addict as the heroin· addict in the street; no one has ever claimed for methadone maintenance the status of a cure. The difference is simply and only that the methadone pa tient need not steal to support his habit. Ironically, this is the cen tral point raised by many "liber als" in attacking the methadone programs. Their argument, as stated in the Science article quoted above, is "that it is a sinister form of social control in that its only purpose is to cut down on addict related crime."

The principal opposition to lib eraliza tion or repeal of present drug laws comes from those who fear that this would be a signifi cant step in what they view as a general breakdown in the moral fiber of our society. That this breakdown is all too real is unde niable, but the contention that so called permissivity is the root cause of the problem is moot. Is it not, rather, that we have created a society in which the natural con sequences of immoral or amoral behavior are not allowed to oper ate? It is not the intelligence or industriousness of the purveyor of hard drugs that makes it possible for him to sport $200 suits and drive $8000 automobiles. It is the action of government that has created his monopoly business. If it were true that "permissivity" were the root cause of breakdowns in the moral order of society, then Soviet Russia or Communist China would be the examples to emulate in today's world. In these countries, morality is rigidly enforced by state edict.

The State defines morality and harshly punishes transgressions against it. Now, many of us ob j ect to the particular moral code that is imposed on the Russian and Chinese peoples. Does this mean that if a tyrant's edicts were based· on the "right" mo rality, that they would be any the less tyrannical? It is obvious that they would not. The very concept of morality is meaningless in any context in which the individual is not free to choose to act immorally. Certainly, any viable society must protect itself against those who would use force to violate the rights of others. It does not fol low, however, that it is either de sirable or proper that any govern ment impose its idea of the good on its citizens. If we wish a so ciety in which people behave hon estly and self-reliantly, we can not achieve it by force. Rather, let us create a social order in which virtue is its own reward.

A Perverted Order What we have created in this century is the antithesis of such an order. We live in a world in 1973 DRUG LEGISLATION-MAINLINE TO DISASTER 53 which sloth is rewarded and indi viduals are protected, by govern ment, from the natural conse quences of their own immoral acts. At least, such is the professed in tention of those who create gov ernmental policy today. An in divid ual does not wish to work? It is the responsibility of others to see that he is fed. An individual is careless with his life on the highway? Let us insulate all driv ers from the consequences of care lessness and ineptitude with belts, airbags, helmets, and padding. An individual chooses to destroy his mind and body with narcotic drugs? Take away the drugs and, failing that, incarcerate or com mit him for "his own good." A Place to Draw the Lin~ If such policies did in fact lead to material prosperity, increased highway safety, and a decrease in the ranks of those whose minds and bodies .are rotted away by narcotic drugs, they would still be abhorrent to anyone who valued freedom. The truth, however, is that they do no such thing. In stead, they foster the very prob lems they are designed to solve.

The zombies who stalk our city streets in search of their next vic tim and their next fix are not a problem for government to solve but, rather, one more problem that government has created. And gov ernments'prescribed cure is a more virulent dose of the dread disease itself. . ~ IDEAS ON LIBERTY THE GOVERNMENT tried to "protect" people from the ill effects of alcoholic beverages during 1918 to 1933 with notable lack of suc cess. Their efforts not only failed in their stated purpose but in the process spawned the growth of an organized underworld that is with us today, encouraged corruption of public officials, and taught a general disrespect for the law that still plagues us. The government's efforts to outlaw gambling have had the same dismal results. So have the government's efforts to prevent citi zens from reading pornographic literature, or to regulate sex relations between consenting adults.

If any citizen wishes to engage in activities that are dangerous, considered immoral or frowned upon - which do not hurt anybody else - he should be free to do so. Let's draw the line for freedom and keep the government behind it. Let's not pass any more laws to reduce our freedom by "pro tecting" us from our own 'actions. B. V. BROOKS, JR., The Westport News (Connecticut) August 25,1972 Herbert Spencer: RONALD F. COONEY LIKE ANY ERA one would care to mention, the last half of the Nine teenth Century offered a fair field for the votaries of Statism. The evil effects of the Industrial Revo lution, especially in the country of its origin, England, effects of long hours and little pay, of factories dangerous and unhealthful, of woman and child labor in those factories, of squalid industrial towns, of workmen reduced to the level of automatons, combined with ever-present ignorance, dis ease, and .poverty to complete a picture of misery for much of the British population. The situation demanded a remedy. Then, as now, the agent of deliverance, the deux ex machina, was thought to be the State. England's ills were per ceived not as the result of a natuMr. Cooney is a freelance writer recently graduated from the University of Nevada.