Barry R. McCaffrey
Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy
Testimony before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources
June 16, 1999

Responses by Daniel Johnson, webmaster for NORML Saskatchewan

The fallacies and realities of drug legalization

Fallacy: There is a large movement to legalize drugs in America.

Reality: There is no such thing as a drug legalization "movement" in America....

There is, however, a carefully-camouflaged, well-funded, tightly-knit core of people whose goal is to legalize drug use in the United States. It is critical to understand that whatever they say to gain respectability in social circles, or to gain credibility in the media and academia, their common goal is to legalize drugs.

My reply: There is a large movement, law enforcement knows this, and this is why most of it's supporters have been driven down by various scare tactics and outright brutality. Anti-parephenalia laws were designed to scare people out of vocalizing support. As a result, many are scared to sign petitions, scared to attend events or voice support outside drug culture circles.
It should also be pointed out that most of the movement is specifically talking about marijuana, McCaffrey is using the blanket term "drugs" to distort the facts.

Fallacy: U.S. citizens increasingly support drug legalization.

Reality: Rightfully, the U.S. public opposes drug legalization.

The people of the U.S. understand the risks that drug legalization would entail and overwhelmingly reject this ill-considered approach. Youth access to and use of alcohol and cigarettes is bad enough; parents clearly don't want children able to use a fake ID at the corner store to buy heroin. We have enough problems with drinking and driving; families don't want to live in fear that the driver of the eighteen wheeler motoring alongside their minivan is high on marijuana, methamphetamines or LSD. Thousands of our loved ones already die from drug-related causes; reasonable people don't want drugs to be accessible over the Internet....

Response: Intoxication is intoxication, McCaffrey is pretending that intoxication rates would go up when what would actually happen is that the same people would be using a variety of intoxicants. As for the fake id problem, it is a seperate issue entirely and irrelevent to the legalization question.

Not only do North Americans reject legalization, they also support policies to rid their communities, schools, and workplaces of drugs. For example, a 1995 Gallup poll found that 72% of North Americans want drug testing in the workplace. Sixty-seven percent supported random drug testing by employers. This same survey found that 73% of all employees support their employers' drug-free workplace policies and programs. Another 23% of employees want their employers to go even further and adopt tougher programs. Similarly, a soon-to-be released Gallup poll finds that 85% of North Americans support greater funding for drug interdiction.

Response: Polls say all kinds of funny things that referendum results always seem to refute. The US government, both parties, refuses to hold a federal referendum because it knows that most of it's citizens support legalization.

Fallacy: Drug legalization will not increase drug use.

Reality: Drug legalization would significantly increase the human and economic costs associated with drugs.

Proponents argue that legalization is a cure-all for our nation's drug problem. However, the facts show that legalization is not a panacea but a poison. In reality, legalization would dramatically expand the U.S.'s drug dependence, significantly increase the social costs of drug abuse, and put countless more innocent lives at risk.

Response: Again, it wouldn't raise the number of people using intoxicants only the variety of intoxicants available.

A. The Dutch Model Those who support legalization often hold up the Netherlands as an example that legalization can work. While the Dutch have adopted a "softer" approach to some drugs, they have not legalized them. Under the Dutch system possession and small sales of marijuana have been decriminalized. However, marijuana production and larger scale sales remain criminal. Drugs such as cocaine and heroin remain illegal. Most importantly, while the Dutch have not legalized drugs, the softening of Dutch criminal laws against marijuana has led to a normalization of drug use more broadly. The accompanying change in public attitudes has, arguably, played as critical a role in Dutch drug use patterns as has the shift in the actual law.

Response: Yes, once it was easier to get more people tried it. But they were drawn to intoxication for reasons of their own and most used alcohol first.

If the Dutch experience with drugs is an appropriate model at all, it is because it illustrates the harms that result from increased tolerance of illegal drugs. This conclusion was brought home to all of us from the Office of National Drug Control Policy who traveled to the Netherlands in July, 1998 to gain a better understanding of the Dutch approach....

Proponents of legalization argue that the Dutch experience provides a model for a "softer approach" to fighting drug use. Upon close examination the pitfalls of the Dutch experience offer more than ample evidence to dissuade the United States from adopting the drug policies of the Netherlands approach. Instead the Dutch example clearly argues in favor of continuing the balanced U.S. approach, which is producing results.

B. The U.S. Experience U.S. experiences with drug legalization portend similar risks to those experienced in Holland. During the 1970s, our nation engaged in a serious debate over the shape of our drug control policies. (For example, within the context of this debate, between 1973 and 1979, eleven states "decriminalized" marijuana). During this timeframe, the number of North Americans supporting marijuana legalization hit a modern-day high. While it is difficult to show causal links, it is clear that during this same period, from 1972 to 1979, marijuana use rose from 14% to 31% among adolescents, 48% to 68% among young adults, and 7% to 20% among adults over 26. This period marked one of the largest drug use escalations in U.S. history....

Response: Decriminalization was done through the ballots and then the laws were all federalized to overrule those states. Legalization WAS NOT tried, the people demanded it and the federal government PISSED ON THEIR VOTE. McCaffrey is LYING.

The United States has tried drug legalization and rejected it several times now because of the suffering it brings. The philosopher Santayana was right in his admonition that "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Let us not now be so foolish as to once again consider this well worn, dead-end path.

Response: Again, McCaffrey is LYING. It wasn't tried.

In addition to the impact of expanded availability, legalization would have a devastating effect on how our children see drug use. Youth drug use is driven by attitudes. When young people perceive drugs as risky and socially unacceptable, youth drug use drops. Conversely, when children perceive less risk and greater acceptability in using drugs, their use increases. If nothing else, legalization would send a strong message that taking drugs is a safe and socially accepted behavior that is to be tolerated among our peers, loved ones and children. Such a normalization would play a major role in softening youth attitudes and, ultimately, increasing drug use. The significant increases in youth drug use that would accompany legalization are particularly troubling because their effects would be felt over the course of a generation or longer. Without help, addictions last a lifetime. Every additional young person we allow to become addicted to drugs will impose tremendous human and fiscal burdens on our society. Legalization would be a usurious debt upon our society's future; the costs of such an approach would mount exponentially with each new addict, and over each new day.

Response: Again, intoxicant use does not go up, only the variety of intoxicants. Intoxicant use in general is promoted openly and is treated as a safe and acceptable behaviour by the mainstream media. Promoting one intoxicant promotes the idea of intoxication itself.

D. The Impact of Drug Prices

If drugs were legalized, we can also expect that the attendant drop in drug prices to cause drug use rates to grow as drugs become increasingly affordable to buy. Currently a gram of cocaine sells for between $150 and $200 on U.S. streets. The cost of cocaine production is as low as $3 per gram. In order to justify legalization, the market cost for legalized cocaine would have to be set so low as to make the black market, or bootleg cocaine, economically unappealing. Assume, for argument sake, that the market price was set at $10 per gram, a three hundred percent plus markup over cost, each of the fifty hits of cocaine in that gram could retail for as little as ten cents.

With the cost of "getting high" so as low as ten cents (about the cost of a cigarette) the price of admission to drug use would be no obstacle to anyone even considering it. However, each of these "dime" users risks a life-long drug dependence problem that will cost them, their families, and our society tens of thousands of dollars....

Response: Wait, where's the tens of thousands of dollars? Is the damage more than alcohol? Adding another intoxicant won't add more addicts, just different addictions. Prison never helped any of them.

Fallacy: Drug legalization would reduce the harm of drug use on our society.

Reality: Drug legalization would cost billions of dollars and risk millions of additional innocent lives.

By increasing the rates of drug abuse, legalization would exact a tremendous cost on our society. If drugs were legalized, the United States would see significant increases in the number of drug users, the number of drug addicts, and the number of people dying from drug-related causes. While many of these costs would fall first and foremost on the user, countless other people would also suffer if drugs were legalized. Contrary to what libertarians and legalizers would have us believe, drug use is not a victimless crime.

Response: But alcohol related costs are okay, though they are much higher than the illegal drugs have ever been, simply because McCaffrey and his social circle are "responsible" alcohol users and doesn't think they should go to jail for it.

A. Increases in Child Abuse and Neglect Innocent children suffer the most from drug abuse. In No Safe Havens, experts from Columbia University's Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse found that substance abuse (including drugs and alcohol) exacerbates seven of every ten child abuse or neglect cases....

Response: Will there be more or will they just not have to hide the use of certain drugs and be able to get those drugs for cheaper? Again, alcohol. Not more users, just more to use.

B. Increases in Drugged Driving Accidents

Over the last ten years, U.S. citizens have grown increasingly aware of the death toll related to drinking and driving. While we focus less on the risks of drugged-driving, the fact is that if the driver on the road next to you is drugged, you and whoever is riding with you are at risk. A National Transportation Safety Board study of 182 fatal truck accidents revealed that 12.5% of the drivers had used marijuana, in comparison to 12.5% who used alcohol, 8.5% who used cocaine and 7.9% who used stimulants. Illegal drugs (marijuana, cocaine, and stimulants combined) were present in more accidents than alcohol, even though alcohol is legal and far more available. A study of 440 drivers, ages 15 to 34 years old, who were killed in California during a two-year period detected alcohol and marijuana in one-third of victims. More than one-half consumed a drug or drugs other than alcohol....

Response: Irresponsible people drive while intoxicated. Legalization won't create more irresponsible people, it will just give them more options.

C. Increases in Workplace Accidents, Decreasing Productivity Just as drug impairment behind the wheel puts others at risk, so too does impairment on the job. Since over 60% of drug users in the United States are employed, it is not surprising that workplace drug use is a significant problem. According to a 1995 Gallup survey, 35% of U.S. employees report having seen drug use on-the-job by co-workers. One-in-ten report having been offered drugs while at work. Drug use in the workplace diminishes productivity and increases costs. Drug using employees are more likely to have taken an unexcused absence in the last month, and are more likely to change or leave a job. The National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism estimated that the cost to our nation's productivity from illegal drug use was $69.4 billion in 1992....

Response: Hey, wait, where was this huge majority that promoted more anti-drug rules in the workplace...?

Fallacy: Drugs are harmful because they are illegal.

Reality: Drugs are harmful not because they are illegal; they are illegal because they are harmful.

Critics argue that the harm to our society from drugs, such as the costs of crime, could be reduced if drugs were legalized. The logic is flawed. By increasing the availability of drugs, legalization would dramatically increase the harm to innocent people. With more drugs and drug use in our society, there would be more drug-related child abuse, more drugged driving fatalities, and more drug-related workplace accidents. None of these harms are caused by law or law enforcement but by illegal drugs.

There are more arrests for drug use and trafficking than there are for drug related child abuse and drugged driving. Workplace accidents would not increase, the kinds of people who aren't safe at work when they drink won't be safe at work stoned. No real difference.

Even with respect to the crime-related impact of drugs, drug-related crimes are driven far more by addiction than by the illegality of drugs. Law enforcement doesn't cause people to steal to support their habits; they steal because they need money to fuel an addiction, a drug habit that often precludes them from earning an honest living. Even if drugs were legal, people would still steal and prostitute themselves to pay for addictive drugs and support their addicted lifestyles....

Response: The addiction is expensive because of the illegality. However, people do commit crimes to afford alcohol too. It would be the same people, except the revenue from the addicts could go to public use like the revenue from alcohol addicts.

Fallacy: We are fighting a war on drugs.

Reality: Our balanced efforts against drugs are analogous to the fight against cancer.

Wars have defined end states; victory over an enemy. Our efforts against drugs have no such neatly defined end; with each generation the struggle to prevent drug use begins anew. Addicted North Americans: parents, siblings, and children, are not the enemy, they require treatment. Wars are waged with weapons and soldiers; prevention and treatment are our primary tools against drugs. Consequently, our efforts to reduce drug use are analogous to the fight against cancer.

Response: Ronald Reagan declared and Bush redeclared a war on drugs, it's your job, Mr. McCaffrey, to lead the fight in the war on drugs and you're saying it isn't a war. No wonder you're losing.
Also, I have some issue with the following statement: "Wars have defined end states".
Could you please tell that to your current president? He doesn't appear to know this. Or are you going to tell me that the Iraq and Afganistan conflicts aren't wars either?

Nevertheless, an effective counter-drug strategy must focus on both supply and demand reduction. Supply-side efforts (law enforcement and interdiction) are necessary because, as basic economic rules dictate, unabated supply will ultimately create its own demand. However, those of us who have experienced combat know that such supply-side efforts are a far cry from "war."...

Response: DEA agents call it a war and describe it in those terms. The fact is, you have heavily armed paramilitary units with high tech weapons and helicopters invading our neighborhoods. It is a war, Mr. McCaffrey, and you know it.

Fallacy: Our current approach to drugs is not making a difference.

Reality: We are making strong, steady progress in reducing drug use and preventing young people from turning to drugs.

Response: At best, your driving more people to alcohol. Is that better?

Rather than trade rhetoric, we should focus on results:

Response: rhetoric is all you have, Mr. McCaffrey, after the lies and half truths are cleared out.

--Over the last twenty years we have cut drug use in the United States by half and reduced cocaine use by 75%.

Response: Due to sting operations involving fake polls, the number of people who will admit use to someone claiming to be doing a poll has dropped.

--Over the last two years, youth drug use rates have leveled off and in many cases have begun to fall. This shift marks a sharp departure from the prior six years, which saw steady increases in youth drug use. Most importantly, we have begun to see a sharpening of youth attitudes against drugs; youth increasingly see drugs as risky and unacceptable.

Response: Due to sting operations in highschools involving fake polls, the number of teenagers who will admit use to someone claiming to be doing a poll has dropped.

--The number of drug-related murders has now hit a ten-year low. In 1989, there were 1402 drug-related murders; by 1997 that number had fallen to 786.

Response: Control of the drug supply has diversified. More people are smuggling, the mega gangs and CIA sponsered cartels that used to have a monopoly no longer do. There's less to kill for because the risks and costs are coming down.

--Spending on illegal drugs has dropped 37% from 1988 to 1995, an annual savings of $34.1 billion.

Response: People have gotten better at hiding spending, increased social acceptability has made it easier for dealers and users to live without being labelled as such, and, again, supply has diversified and the price is coming down.

Such results against any other societal ill would be called a huge success. Let me thank the Committee and the Congress as a whole for your bipartisan support of our counter-drug programs. Without your strong support results like these would not have been possible.