SHOULD WE "LEGALIZE" DRUGS?
To answer the question properly it must be subjected to a rational examination of the costs and benefits.
This can only happen if the question becomes the subject of public debate and discussion.
Some Of The Benefits
* The elimination of nearly all of the illegal drug trade [IDT]; no more drug cartels, drug lords and drug dealers.
One major connected benefit is that drugs would no longer be "easy to get" as most of our teens now report.
Another is that there would be a major decrease in crime directly traced to the IDT and its customers. See: Crime and Drugs
* A huge reduction in the burden on the court system, making the criminal justice system and law enforcement far more effective at protecting the public's safety and less corrupt.
See: Drug War Damage
One example is that we now make more arrests just for marijuana offenses than arrests for murder, rape, robbery and armed assault combined.
Another is that about half of all convictions of public officials for corruption involve connections to the IDT.
* A huge reduction in innocent victims harmed primarily by the operation of the IDT and also by police errors and abuses of power.
See: Moral Dilemma
* Huge dollar savings.
Direct savings in the $30 billion a year range but indirect savings and tax revenue might well triple the amount or more. A government analyst in 1994 estimated minimum savings of about $35 billion a year; the number would be much larger today. In America's Longest War, Professor S. Duke of Yale has estimated that the ripple effect of social savings could total over $400 billion a year.
* More effective responses to terrorism
No one disputes that illegal drug profits have helped fund terrorists from Spain to Kosovo to Afghanistan. Osama Bin Ladin is a known beneficiary.
The only drug that can provide money to a terrorist is one that we have decided to prohibit.
Beyond the profits is the diversion of resources. When law enforcement has the immense burden of enforcing prohibition and some 1,500,000 drug related arrests each year, that is an enormous resource that is not engaged in Homeland Security.
Moreover, the reality that even the attempt to stop the drug trade creates a major dilemma for the US is typified by this article from Time magazine, by Tim McGirk, Aug. 18, 2003 :
Drugs? What Drugs?
The U.S. military may be turning a blind eye to Afghanistan's drug trade, which fills the coffers of both enemies and allies
While searching for Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters, U.S. special forces in Afghanistan routinely come across something they're not looking for: evidence of a thriving Afghan drug trade. But they're not doing anything about it, antinarcotics experts tell TIME. ...
... "I'm positive that the Taliban are heavily involved in drug trafficking," says Wais Yasini, counter-narcotics adviser to Afghan President Hamid Karzai. "How else do you account for the source of their money?" This year, after a bumper crop of opium poppies, say U.N. officials, Afghanistan became the world's largest heroin producer, with an estimated $1.2 billion in profits.
The debate over whether to crack down on the drug trade has reached the top levels of the Pentagon. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld doesn't want the already over-stretched 8,000 U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan to become sidetracked from their main goal: to capture and kill terrorists. And chasing drug smugglers could take away allies from the Americans. Diplomats say many of the local commanders the U.S. military relies on for intelligence on al-Qaeda and the Taliban and to provide hired guns are mixed up in the drug business. "Without money from drugs, our friendly warlords can't pay their militias," says a Kabul diplomat. "It's as simple as that."