When prohibitionists implement this strategy of debating with themselves, they make numerous tactical errors, such as opening with a concession that the very policy they are attempting to defend is a failure:
So, the war on drugs is not working. Agreed. But the question to ask is, "Why?" Is it not working because using drugs is really a fine idea, and we've been unjust and unreasonable in not letting everyone do whatever they want to do? Or is it not working because the way we've gone about waging this war set us up for failure?Indeed, having set up a nifty little false dichotomy, Mr. Duncan and Mr. Tasch appear to have hit the nail on the head with that one, thereby sucking us into the illusion that the failure of the war on drugs is a matter of methodology, not the policy itself. I am not fooled — and neither is anybody else who does not take comfort in the 80-plus year-old status quo.Without a doubt, we think it's the latter.
Ostensibly predicting that such proclamations carry no weight without
subsequent proposals of ideas for more effective implementations, Mr. Duncan and Mr. Tasch go on to hypothesize that the trouble with the institution of drug prohibition is that it focuses upon supply instead of demand:
The premise underlying these approaches is the idea that supply drives demand: The more drugs there are, the more people use them. It is a fatally flawed assumption. The truth is just the opposite: Demand drives supply, and until we accept the significance of this fundamental failure of understanding, the strategies we come up with will continue to fail. In other words, the failure of the war on drugs is no justification for legalizing these harmful substances.The quotation above belies the fact that we already have numerous laws and policies that are intended to address demand, such as drug courts and other "harm reduction" measures.
And nevermind the oversimplification of the complex economic theory known as supply and demand, for it is quite obviously a clumsy propagandistic segue into an emotional appeal to ignorance-supported fears of outlaw drugs — as well as the old implied threat of anarchy behind the notion of "legalization," which is actually a prohibitionist term for a sensible drug policy that involves regulation rather than interdiction (it is for this very reason that drug policy reform activists and advocates should avoid using the "L" word and the "D" word).
Article comments
1 - Kirk Muse
Several years ago I had a friend who used to boast
that he drank at least 25 cups of coffee a day.
Unfortunately, he died of a heart attack when he was in his mid 40's.
Suppose my friend was a very famous athlete who had died when he was in his early 20's after consuming more than 30 cups of coffee the previous day. Suppose this famous athlete was expected to be the next Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson or Larry Bird.
Suppose that this famous athletes who had tragically died before his very promising professional career had begun, had his picture on the front page of most of our nation's
newspapers and his story was on the network news for several days.
Do you think that self-serving politicians would have called for the prohibition of all caffeine containing beverages?
Would we now be involved in a war on caffeine?
2 - Howard Dratch
Logic. Reason. Discussion of an untenable "fight". How dare you bring logic into an emotional controversy that brings vituperative pleasure to so many? Some people need to blame someone or some thing for all the ills of their society.
Imagine: "If we are to address drug abuse and addiction as a public health problem rather than as an issue of law enforcement, then we must take our focus away from drugs themselves, regardless of their various legal statuses, for they are not truly relevant to the underlying causes of self-destructive behavior." Logic, again.
It was a fine article and I enjoyed your extensive and insightful blog.
3 - Ray Ellis
The so-called "war on drugs" was never anything more than a PR spin by a government diverting attention from its own complicity in the international drug trade.
But you, Ms. Toigo, speak eloquently about the fallacy of the prohibitionists' strategies. Consequently, I would not expect an invitation from the Administration anytime soon if I were you.
4 - Peter J
Ms Voigo, you stated your case elegantly, unfortunately when you use too many words on the self riteous highbrows who dismiss anything that is logic to their drug situation you provide them with too many avenues to which they will digress. It must be kept short and sweet, very simple.
To these people I would ask simply how was this countries alcohol problem(problem being associated crimes)solved? Is alcohol not a drug?
The question answers itself!
5 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Mr. Muse, if ever there was a measure proposed to outlaw caffeine, civil unrest would ensue immediately, with me leading the charge.
What causes some drugs to be demonized while others are not has always been beyond my comprehension. I still cannot figure out why marijuana is still illegal and have been perplexed by this conundrum ever since I discovered that the outlaw weed is far less intoxicating than the perfectly legal, hard drug known as alcohol.
Thank you, Mr. Dratch and Mr. Ellis. I assure you that I am not holding my breath in anticipation of receiving an invitation to discuss drug policy with the current administration.
Mr. J, I understand exactly what you mean about "too many words." Indeed, if you cannot say it in one breath, nobody is going to pay attention.
However, it is not as if I am expecting to encounter any prohibitionists who will wish to challenge me to a debate as they avoid me like the plague.
Anyway, my article was not directed at prohibitionists, but rather toward my fellow reformers in the hope that they might find a few good arguments therein and possibly offer me a few that I haven't thought of yet.
6 - Paul S
Nicely put. I think it is always worth pointing out to the supporters of Prohibition that nearly every problem they ascribe to illegal drugs is either directly caused or exacerbated by the fact that those drugs are illegal.
As for their opinions on alcohol, I will concede to Mssrs. Duncan and Tasch that indeed alcohol kills far more people than any illegal drug. In fact it kills more than all illegal drugs combined.
And yet, it is still legal. They should consider this, and then ask themselves why we persist in keeping these relatively innocuous drugs illegal, when alcohol is not? They might also meditate on the proposition that the American people consider all of the problems with alcohol abuse to be both manageable and worthwhile, in order to keep it legal.
7 - Kirk Muse
When Coca-Cola contained cocaine instead of caffeine,and sold for 5 cents a bottle, we didn't have "drug-related crime," drug lords or even drug dealers as we know them today.
The Czech Republic is the only country where adult citizens can legally grow, possess and use marijuana. The Czech Republic has almost no heroin, cocaine or meth problem and their crime rate is a tiny fraction of the U. S. crime rate.
Will we adopt the Czech drug policy? No.
Too many people, organizations and institutions have a vested interest in continuing the status quo of marijuana prohibition.
8 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Indeed, many people, organizations and institutions have a vested interest in continuing the status quo and I submit that this is the reason why the silence in the public square with regard to this issue is so deafening.
For several years now, prohibitionists have avoided publicly debates with reformers because they know they will get their butts kicked every time, which is why the authors of the editorial in question play at debate with some imaginary "drug legalizers," instead of real reformers who will readily expose the untenability of the war on drugs.