Some group reached out to me. They seem sincere and I read what they wrote and considered their line of reasoning. In short, I found that they are a consortium of law enforcement officers who are rallying against the prohibition of drugs. Their belief, and I see their point, is the same belief that many promote: end the prohibition, legalize, decriminalize and/or regulate narcotics. Sounds simple, logical and reasonable because: We are losing the war on drugs, and everyone knows that.
But here is where I pause—dramatically—and I do this for two reasons.
One: Nothing about this subject is that simple; in fact it’s quite complicated.
And two: The entire proposition is based on a presupposition, which is: We are losing the war on drugs, and everyone knows it.
The problem with presuppositions is that they do exactly that—presuppose. And in this case it’s a troublesome supposition.
But let’s step back from whether we are winning or losing and revisit the notion that our effort to combat drugs is even a “war.”
Is it? And if it is, who said it was? Who declared it? I think President Nixon used the term once or twice, but it wasn’t a legal definition or a congressionally sanctioned military action. Still, it became part of our lexicon.
So if it is a war, how are we doing?
We’re losing; case closed. The debate is over, the scholarly have spoken. Media types, Hollywoodians, educators, politicians and even some in law enforcement have made the declaration: When it comes to enforcement of illegal drugs, we’re failing. Their collective solution? Surrender. Let’s legalize narcotics and tax its distribution. That’ll fix the problem.
So here’s the controversial part of the article—the part that’s going to tick some people off—I don’t think it’s a war. I don’t think we are losing, and surrender isn’t an option. By the way, the verb losing is the real point of the previous statement.
Think through that line of us losing a war and the uncontested conclusion that surrender (legalization) is the only option. Since when do we surrender because things aren’t perfect or there is no clear win? If you take that belief to its logical conclusion we’d have to apply it to other domestic type wars.
The War on Poverty. The War on Cancer. The War on Crime—how we doing there? Hell, we don’t even know how to measure that one.
Back to drugs. Are we really losing this supposed war? Let’s examine.
What would the country’s physical and psychological makeup be if drugs were legalized or decriminalized (two different things, by the way).
Legalize: regulate and tax.
Decriminalize: ignore it.
Either one you choose, what would be the result? Less dependency? Less addiction? Fewer deaths? Not as many innocent victims? Less intoxicated motorists on the roadway? A smaller number of overdoses?
A study cited in the Los Angeles Times noted that “38,329 people died of drug overdoses in the United States in 2010, an uptick from the previous year and the latest sign of a deadly trend involving prescription painkillers.” Prescription drugs! Legal narcotics! These taxed and licensed drugs accounted for 57% of those 38,000 deaths. Hmmm …
Law enforcement’s job isn’t to rid society of illegal drugs; never has been. Our job is to keep a lid on the chaos, the mayhem, the destruction, the death. The same thing we are doing with all other types of crime.
Our efforts, as well as our successes, cannot be measured accurately when it comes to battling drug use and narcotics trafficking just as we really can’t measure successes in our battle against domestic abuse (less arrests, by the way, doesn’t translate into less women being beaten).
I know that I often write with a glib smart-ass attitude in an effort to avoid boring readers. Suffice it to say, there is no easy, politically correct answer to this very serious and deadly problem. And our future efforts need to be thought through very carefully before we rush in to legalize, decriminalize and/or a taxing policy.
I grew up a Chicago democrat, went to college and was fairly liberal; had the Starsky afro and hippie beard to prove it. Admittedly, I’ve become more conservative over the years. I acknowledge that I’m skeptical of government overreaching into our private lives and choices. But when it comes to drugs and legalizing them I’m hesitant. I’ve seen the devastating destruction they cause both professionally and personally.
I’m not saying that treatment and counseling are worthless (they aren’t) or that drug courts shouldn’t exist (they should), but if anyone thinks that therapy and medication or taxing narcotics will stem the addiction tide, pardon me, but you don’t live in reality. Get ready for a tsunami if we walk away from enforcement. The truth is: Drug programs work less than 10% (some say it’s actually around 3%) of the time. Consider the fact that most people who enter them want to get sober. What do you think the success rate is for people who enroll because a court gave them no other option?
Do I know the answer to this problem? Absolutely not, I’m a C student. But I know the devastation of narcotics on the body, the family and society. Give drugs a free reign and in a decade you might not recognize this country.
Download the full survey results:
Law Officer Drug Survey Full Survey Results 90.67 KB
Key Points Infographics:
Law Officer Drug Survey Infographic 886.45 KB
