Drugs are Us
Let’s face it there is no such thing as Drug Control. Ok, so there is no such thing as control, only influence. The question then remains is that influence big, biggest, small or somewhere in between? If your influence is the biggest then you probably will get your way. If its big then you might get your way, but if its small then things will not play out in your favor.
Back to the topic at hand drug influence. Society has been and will continue to use drugs; no program will be able to stop drug use. Thus current drug influence measures are inadequate; that is they could be better. A change in thinking regarding influencing drug use could be beneficial.
The change is one of no tolerance to one of accepted use. Do not misconstrue this for drug legalization. Accepted use policy would have many benefits: revenue from drug sales, user identification, targeted rehabilitation, and safe drug use.
The first step would be to accept drug use; an interested party would be able to visit an authorized drug retailer, like a pharmacy. They would have to present valid and verified identification (ID is checked against a database), and then they could buy an individual sized dosage. Benefit number one is approximately $60 billion dollars in drug sales (1). The second benefit, a known and publicly published list of drug users in America which is almost 42 percent of the population (1). Along with the drugs the users are given proper and sterile administration devices (i.e. needles.) This would reduce the spread of infections diseases because of drug use. Sterile drug paraphernalia could reduce the number of new HIV cases up to 36 in America per year (2). There is a benefit to drug users as they know what they are getting and its quality and purity would be guaranteed.
Any use of drugs outside of the accepted use policy would be harshly dealt with. If users obtain their drugs from sources other then authorized retailers there would be mandatory rehabilitation and other harsh punishment (jail time). Also to keep drug monies domestic the drugs would be grown, and refined in the US, all operations would have oversight and would be regularly audited.
As of 1999 drug use in America is estimated to have cost society $110 billion annually (2). Provided a policy of accepted drug use does not significantly raise the costs to society the selling of the drugs would at least offset cost to society of drug use. In addition the cost to society could be offset more because of the fact that drug users claim almost twice the amount of medical benefits as those of nonusers (2). Benefit number four for nonusers is lower insurance; with the public list of users insurance companies could charge more in premiums to drug users then those of nonusers.
What about the cost to the users? Many users are so consumed by their addiction that they cannot hold jobs so they have to get the money elsewhere sometimes by means of crime (2). Controlled use is not addiction, which is benefit number five. By knowing who the users are they can be observed and counseled on their drug use habits. If the users become addicted they would be admitted into rehabilitation, this program would be compulsory and completion mandatory. Also no purchase would be allowed to be made on credit (taxes could be referenced so as to make sure users don’t use loan sharks, or loan sharks punished for loans to drug users.); this would hopefully keep users financially stable.
Also, accepted use should not allow users to use drugs or be under the influence of drugs while on the job. Employers would be allowed to restrict work from drug users. However it could be encouraged to allow users to be employed but not be under the influence or use drugs while working, much is the same for alcohol use on the job.
Although no solid correlation can be drawn from such little data, there seems to be a pattern in the work of R. E. Peterson, who analyzed drug laws and drug incarceration between 1960 and 1995. That period contained two types of drug enforcement; 1960 to 1980 was a period of permissive drug laws, and 1980 to 1995 was a time of tough drug laws. The corresponding drug incarceration rates fell almost 80 percent for the first period but rose almost 450 percent during the era of tough drug laws (2). If the perceived pattern holds then drug use should fall if a policy of accepted use were instituted.
The goal of influence should be to make the best of the situation. Drug enforcements goal should not be to prevent its use completely but to make the best of the situation. To make the best of the current situation the drug policy should embrace accepted use.
Sources:
(1) Presidents National Drug Control Policy: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/drugdata/index.html
(2) Transcript, DEA Congressional Testimony, June 16, 1999: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/cngrtest/ct061699.htm
Back to the topic at hand drug influence. Society has been and will continue to use drugs; no program will be able to stop drug use. Thus current drug influence measures are inadequate; that is they could be better. A change in thinking regarding influencing drug use could be beneficial.
The change is one of no tolerance to one of accepted use. Do not misconstrue this for drug legalization. Accepted use policy would have many benefits: revenue from drug sales, user identification, targeted rehabilitation, and safe drug use.
The first step would be to accept drug use; an interested party would be able to visit an authorized drug retailer, like a pharmacy. They would have to present valid and verified identification (ID is checked against a database), and then they could buy an individual sized dosage. Benefit number one is approximately $60 billion dollars in drug sales (1). The second benefit, a known and publicly published list of drug users in America which is almost 42 percent of the population (1). Along with the drugs the users are given proper and sterile administration devices (i.e. needles.) This would reduce the spread of infections diseases because of drug use. Sterile drug paraphernalia could reduce the number of new HIV cases up to 36 in America per year (2). There is a benefit to drug users as they know what they are getting and its quality and purity would be guaranteed.
Any use of drugs outside of the accepted use policy would be harshly dealt with. If users obtain their drugs from sources other then authorized retailers there would be mandatory rehabilitation and other harsh punishment (jail time). Also to keep drug monies domestic the drugs would be grown, and refined in the US, all operations would have oversight and would be regularly audited.
As of 1999 drug use in America is estimated to have cost society $110 billion annually (2). Provided a policy of accepted drug use does not significantly raise the costs to society the selling of the drugs would at least offset cost to society of drug use. In addition the cost to society could be offset more because of the fact that drug users claim almost twice the amount of medical benefits as those of nonusers (2). Benefit number four for nonusers is lower insurance; with the public list of users insurance companies could charge more in premiums to drug users then those of nonusers.
What about the cost to the users? Many users are so consumed by their addiction that they cannot hold jobs so they have to get the money elsewhere sometimes by means of crime (2). Controlled use is not addiction, which is benefit number five. By knowing who the users are they can be observed and counseled on their drug use habits. If the users become addicted they would be admitted into rehabilitation, this program would be compulsory and completion mandatory. Also no purchase would be allowed to be made on credit (taxes could be referenced so as to make sure users don’t use loan sharks, or loan sharks punished for loans to drug users.); this would hopefully keep users financially stable.
Also, accepted use should not allow users to use drugs or be under the influence of drugs while on the job. Employers would be allowed to restrict work from drug users. However it could be encouraged to allow users to be employed but not be under the influence or use drugs while working, much is the same for alcohol use on the job.
Although no solid correlation can be drawn from such little data, there seems to be a pattern in the work of R. E. Peterson, who analyzed drug laws and drug incarceration between 1960 and 1995. That period contained two types of drug enforcement; 1960 to 1980 was a period of permissive drug laws, and 1980 to 1995 was a time of tough drug laws. The corresponding drug incarceration rates fell almost 80 percent for the first period but rose almost 450 percent during the era of tough drug laws (2). If the perceived pattern holds then drug use should fall if a policy of accepted use were instituted.
The goal of influence should be to make the best of the situation. Drug enforcements goal should not be to prevent its use completely but to make the best of the situation. To make the best of the current situation the drug policy should embrace accepted use.
Sources:
(1) Presidents National Drug Control Policy: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/drugdata/index.html
(2) Transcript, DEA Congressional Testimony, June 16, 1999: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/cngrtest/ct061699.htm
posted by MMM at 8:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home