Caitlin Hall

Since America proclaimed its War on Drugs in 1988, politicians have mindlessly cloyed to become the drug czar's No. 1 lackey, lest they should appear "soft on drugs." While for some of us that evokes pleasant memories of would-be communists flocking to McCarthy's side, such unanimity does not serve democracy, and should be regarded as cause for concern.

Like other valence issues that remain unexamined, the consensus over the drug war is more a matter of perception than thoughtful policy. Close scrutiny yields vastly different conclusions than those to which our politicians universally cling. Accordingly, I am led by the facts that follow to what most would consider an unlikely declaration: The welfare of our country would be advanced by the legalization of all drugs.

Let's begin by considering the current status of the campaign. According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the drug war has cost taxpayers $210 billion, twice the amount of the current deficit, in the course of the last 15 years. Despite that outrageous sum, drug costs have steadily decreased and purity steadily increased during that time. Furthermore, more people than ever are using drugs, and they are starting at an earlier age.

Based on these statements, it would certainly seem that the War on Drugs has failed to accomplish its aims. However, it hasn't simply failed; it has severely harmed the well-being of our country.

To explain this claim, let's examine an analogy: the prohibition of alcohol from 1920 until 1933. Although alcohol consumption was initially reduced during Prohibition, it gradually regained its popularity and even surpassed its pre-Prohibition levels before being re-legalized. The black market for alcohol expanded to meet increased demand, and as a result crime syndicates were organized around its production and distribution. The proliferation of crime, along with the criminalization of alcohol use, led to severe overcrowding of our nation's prisons.

However, once Prohibition was repealed, crime rates dropped, order was restored to the criminal justice system, and alcohol use rose negligibly. Similar effects could be expected from the legalization of drugs. Indeed, when marijuana use was decriminalized in 11 states in the 1970s, there was no corresponding increase in the frequency of use.

Furthermore, the current system does nothing to encourage personal responsibility. Addicts who would like to seek help are discouraged from doing so by fear of stigma and prosecution. Such people would benefit most by the redirection of efforts from a supply-side war to a program that emphasizes education and rehabilitation.

The same fears that prevent addicts from seeking treatment dissuade users from participating in clean-needle programs, which could drastically reduce HIV and Hepatitis C transmission among certain populations. Thus, legalizing drugs could save lives in three ways: by reducing transmission; by assuring consistency in the purity of substances, thereby preventing overdose due to tainted drugs; and by reducing violent crime perpetrated with the direct or indirect - economic - motive of acquiring drugs.

Opponents of legalization, however, would have people believe that lives will be ultimately lost if prohibition ends. Despite well-established data, they charge that legalization would be accompanied by a massive surge in the number of drug users, who would use their newfound freedom to wreak havoc on our lawful society.

Again, I point to the example of alcohol, which has the potential to be as addictive and destructive as most drugs. As the government found in the 1920s and is finding again today, barring such substances from public use does not limit the injurious behavior associated with them. Those who possess them to the greatest detriment of society are capable of gaining access to them regardless of the law.

I do not advocate diminishing the punishments for crimes committed under the influence of drugs; I believe that abusers should be held to the same standards as, say, alcoholics. However, the fears of abuse, like alcoholism, have little application to the majority of people, including casual users.

That brings me to my final point: Drug use, like alcohol use, is a matter of personal choice. It is not the job of the government to protect people from themselves by instituting morally based laws. As long as drug users do not interfere with the well-being of others, the law has no place in such matters. And as long as users are held responsible for the consequences of their choices, it should be given sovereignty over their own lives. Furthermore, if the general population is so opposed to drug use that it would support the drug war without understanding its failures, surely they can exercise control over its own actions when given the option to choose freely.

Legalizing drugs would lower crime rates, save lives and encourage personal responsibility. It's time for us to stop singing the same old song about the immorality of legalization and at least acknowledge that the topic is open for debate.