War on Drugs

For some of you, this is a non issue or one you think has been solved. Why I am posting this argument, is how it relates to our overall fiscal policy and national debt. We spend over a hundred billion dollars a year on what is coined as the "War On Drugs." We are also incarcerating a larger part of our population than any industrialized democratic country in the world. However, since this war was started by Pres. Nixon in 1973 with the establishment of the DEA and, Pres. Reagan's "Drug Czar" in 1988, the addiction of drugs has not dropped as a percentage of population. If the end result of all this money being spent is no different than when it began, then why continue to spend precious tax dollars on it?

Granted that a significant percentage of all crimes against persons and property have a relationship to illegal drug use. The question is how to control the related crime that affects all of us and manage the use of drugs? I realize that the drug issue has become more of a religious morality issue than a political and economic issue. Why I don't know... Maybe strict law and order ideology is parallel to strict religious obedience theology?

Here is a suggestion:

Lets treat drug addiction as a medical issue rather than a criminal one. By this I mean that those addicted to a chemical can seek their drug of choice from a medical clinic specializing in addiction treatment. This clinic will issue the drugs to the patient and council them on their addiction. In this model the user can talk openly to a medical provider about their addiction and what might be the underlying issues that brought them to use drugs, and then an appropriate treatment might be more acceptable to the user. But currently there is the constant threat of criminal prosecution should they reveal their problems. Also if they could get their drug of choice at or below street price and without danger, then it will reduce to a very small group of street selling of the drugs. This takes the big profits out of it for the drug cartels and theoretically the supply of illegal drugs would naturally decline. Additionally users need not commit the violent crimes against persons and the theft of property to support their habit. It would also reduce the prison population, thus the cost of incarceration @ $37,000/yr/person and having to build more prisons @ hundreds of millions of dollars.

We now know that some individuals have a genetic predisposition for addiction and once addicted to a chemical, it is near impossible to stop their use of it. Those without this genetic code can be treated and stop its use. It is hoped that with some genetic research, a treatment can be found to alter the genetic code to eliminate this addictive receptor of the cells. But until then, better management is needed for those who are genetically addicted. It would be cheaper to warehouse these individuals in inpatient and outpatient treatment facilities than the more costly jails and prisons, which does nothing about their addiction problem. Drugs are as accessible in prison as on the street. Most incarcerated for drug use only cycle through the system, caught, jailed and released, caught, jailed and released. This does not make economic sense.

The money currently spent on police investigation, prosecution and incarceration could be used to pay the medical providers and subsidize some of the cost of the drugs. BTW: for the next couple of years, store all the drugs they get from their busts and that would be a nice inventory to start with in supplying at a low cost the drugs.

If you think about it, we only investigate and incarcerate a person who drinks alcohol if they drink & drive or commit a separate crime like domestic violence, and then they are charged with DUI or domestic violence, not possession or consumption of alcohol. We don't have undercover vice cops selling vodka to catch users. Why do we spend so much money to bust pot, cocaine, and heroin users? There are also crimes committed to obtain alcohol; theft from stores is the main offense. So there will always be some small percentage related to this vice.

There would be additional cost savings in what you pay for homeowner's insurance, if personal property loss from burglary is reduced, as well as lower business insurance premiums for property loss, thus reducing that factor in the price they charge for their goods or services.

Another potential benefit would be the reduction in people overdosing on drugs, as it can be better monitored by the clinic and hopefully through educating the addict about the risks of the mixing of drugs. BTW: no one has ever overdosed on pot. They may get very hungry, but no deaths have been attributed to overdose. The others obviously have toxic levels that will harm and kill. For those with the genetic code of addiction, they can't balance the risk to the need for drugs. No reasonable thought is possible. They may be scared of the potential, but they can't stop themselves. Prison is not the answer.

As a society, we need to consider why those who do not have the genetic code for addiction become addicted at such young ages. Is there such a lack of personal responsibility placed on young people that they have a rather boring and unfulfilled life that drugs are needed to add excitement to their life and also escape from that boredom? Is self esteem so low among a large population of our youth that they find esteem in the culture of drug use? We need to take some of the money we pay Columbia and other nations to fight the drug cartels and use it to find out these answers so we can find ways to stop the use by young people.

My point here is that we are spending large sums of tax dollars without measurable benefit, so why spend it this way? Let's do something that has some measurable benefit.

If you are a parent, I would think you would prefer your child to be in an addiction treatment program than sitting in jail or prison? But that's just me...