Not too long ago, while I was still on sabbatical, ici sententiously posted a link to "Legalization Of Drugs: The Myths And The Facts", written by a Robert L. Maginnis, of the Familly (sic) Research Council, a stellar authority whose website proclaims that "Believing that God is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society."

The FRC engages in most worthy issues:

- Since the early 1990’s, FRC has emerged as a leading conservative think-tank championing “traditional family values” by lobbying for state-sponsored prayer in public schools, private school “vouchers,” abstinence-only programs, filtering software on public library computers, the right to discriminate against gay men and lesbians.
- FRC’s objective is to establish a conservative Christian standard of morality in all of America’s domestic and foreign policy.
- FRC has dedicated itself to working against reproductive freedom, sex education, equal rights for gays and lesbians and their families, funding of the National Endowment for the Arts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. FRC supports a school prayer amendment and would like to ‘disestablish’ the Department of Education. (People For the American Way)

In addition, the article in question a loosely and poorly strung together list of disparate, probably out-of-context facts which, among other things, ignores the massive failure and cost of the US's War on Drugs - smoking pot is a popular activity, especially among College students. Having neither the expertise not the time to do it justice, I invited Caleb to do an analysis on my behalf, who kindly consented:


"By itself, marijuana is a dangerous drug as well. A joint of marijuana is far more carcinogenic than a cigarette. Microbiologist Tom Klein of the University of South Florida reports, "We've tried working with [marijuana smoke], and it's so toxic, you just get it near the immune system and it [the immune system] dies." Klein found that THC [tetrahydrocannabinol -- the active ingredient in marijuana] suppresses some immune system responses and enhances others.[16]"

This is ridiculous. "Carcinogenic" means cancer-causing. It has nothing to do with suppression of immune responses. And btw while it is true that cannabis suppresses the immune system, this is true of other medical drugs, including all steroids. Should ppl who import steroids therefore be hanged?

"A study in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology found that marijuana smoke is often contaminated by the fungus, Aspergillus.[17] Another study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that cases of allergic sinus infection with the same fungus came from recreational use of contaminated marijuana.[18]"

Huh? We should ban substances which *might* cause sinus problems? Where is your sense of perspective?

And anyway, nobody said that smoking cannabis is as healthy as eating celery. The point is that it is not *sufficiently* dangerous to be controlled. Let me put it this way -- panadol can be used to commit suicide, or indeed to poison someone else. Yet it is sold over the counter. There simply has to be a weighing of risks, of costs and benefits when deciding public policy. Just because X poses *some* danger doesn't mean that X should be banned.

"California decriminalized marijuana in 1976, and, within the first six months, arrests for driving under the influence of drugs rose 46 percent for adults and 71.4 percent for juveniles.[33] Decriminalizing marijuana in Alaska and Oregon in the 1970s resulted in the doubling of use.[34] Patrick Murphy, a court-appointed lawyer for 31,000 abused and neglected children in Chicago, says that more than 80 percent of the cases of physical and sexual abuse of children now involve drugs. There is no evidence that legalizing drugs will reduce these crimes, and there is evidence that suggests it would worsen the problem.[35]"

Decriminalisation will result in higher usage in the short run, obviously. But over the long run the level of drug use will stabilise. And anyway, since we have established that soft drugs are not very dangerous, *especially when used recreationally*, it is not the soft drugs figures that we should be looking at. It is the hard drugs figures. The use of cocaine and heroine (I think cocaine is dangerous
and this is supported by the WHO) in the US is 20 times higher than in the Netherlands where soft drugs have been legalised. Drug dealers want to push ppl into taking heroine and coke because they are very addictive and are more expensive. By allowing the recreational use of pot, users will more likely plateau at pot then be led by their (illicit) suppliers to try rougher stuff.

Actually this whole stupid argument has gone on before wrt alcohol, considered in the past to be a very dangerous drug, and prohibited in the US early in the 20th C. Prohibition failed to control alcohol abuse AND was a godsend to organised crime. The same thing is happening today wrt drugs.

But of course the article is concerned to suggest that prohibition is not a good analogy:

"Prohibition was a solitary effort by this country while the rest of the world was essentially "wet." However, most drugs are illegal throughout much of the world. This makes enforcement much easier."

Sadly, this is wrong too. Cannabis is a weed. It can grow anywhere. It has been extremely difficult to enforce the ban on cannabis. Many, many, many ppl in the US use cannabis recreationally.

Then again, although first arguing that Prohibition is not a good parallel, we suddenly have:

"History shows that prohibition curbed alcohol abuse. Alcohol use declined by 30 to 50 percent; deaths from cirrhosis of the liver fell from 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 to 10.7 in 1929; and admissions to state mental hospitals for alcohol psychosis fell from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928.[53] Mark Moore, Harvard professor of criminal justice, wrote: "The real lesson of prohibition is that society can, indeed, make a dent in the consumption of drugs through laws."[54]"

Mark Moore is right, but if you read more by him, you will realise what he is saying is that there is merit in *controlling* drugs thru laws, but not necessarily banning drugs. So for example in Britain, cannabis is still a controlled drug, but has been downgraded to the same level as steroids and sleeping pills.

And remember that Prohibition was considered universally to be a failure ultimately, and the constitution was re-amended to legalise alcohol.

"Yale history professor David F. Musto comments on the myth that prohibition is a good parallel for illicit drug legalization:"Unless drugs were legal for everyone, including children...illicit sale of drugs would continue. Legalization would create more drug-addicted babies, not to mention drug-impaired drivers."[56]"

Musto is opposed to legalisation, but wants softer penalties. He certainly would not advocate hanging traffickers. Here he is, with something quite interesting actually wrt Singapore's drug policy:

"In 1928 there was a national competition to suggest the way in which we could improve prohibition and make it work. And when I went through the Anslinger papers I came across his submission. He actually sat down and wrote out and submitted it ... [his] whole idea was mandatory minimum sentences for people who drank beer once. Now his view was you'd only have to really put a number of people away for drinking beer once and then a lot of people wouldn't drink beer at all and therefore this was the solution.

So he started off life with the notion that severe penalties have tremendous deterrent effect and they're very worth it. And I think that he ended up with a very different estimate of the power of laws and law enforcement to simply stop drug abuse. And I think that's probably where he would be today. He would still be anti-drug, he would still favor tough law enforcement, but I don't think that he would have, what I call, the kind of naive faith that simply passing horrendous laws is going to cause the drug problem to go away."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

"The Swiss opened a "legalized drug" area in Zurich seven years ago and local addicts were given drugs, clean needles, and emergency medical care. Unfortunately, the liberal policy backfired and the number of addicts surged to 3,500; violence surged, too. "Needle Park," as it came to be known, was a place of open warfare among rival gangs, and even police faced gunfire. Their cars were attacked and overturned. In February 1995, officials ended the experiment, conceding that it had evolved into a grotesque spectacle.[68]"

By the name "Needle Park" you would realise that it doesn't refer to cannabis, which cannot be injected but rather is smoked. Needle Park catered largely to heroine addicts, and heroine is a drug most ppl think is very dangerous. And by the way, the failure of Needle Park only shows that open area legalisation is not effective. The Swiss govt continued with enclosed legalised provision, and this has proven successful. I.e. addicts are allowed to inject themselves with a certain amount of heroin in an enclosed room under medical supervision. The benefits are legion: these addicts get clean needles, and the govt is better able to monitor them.

Another point to note is that Needle Park attracted heroine addicts from all over Europe so the rise in the number of addicts was largely caused by this immigration.